Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Bold, or disruptive?

I am having a lot of trouble determining if Closed Limelike Curves (talk · contribs) is editing voting articles boldly or disruptively. For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections, and then moved the article in mid-September, changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates. After I moved it back to the original title a week ago, he held a short discussion involving two (I think) other editors and declared there was consensus to move it back to his preferred title.

Over at Instant-runoff voting, there was a similar problem. He tried to start a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but there seemed to be broad agreement that there was not a content dispute, but rather a problem with CLC's editing methods.

CLC is not a newbie - they've been editing like this for some time. Their request for Page Mover in August was denied because of too many reversals.

So... any suggestions on the best way to get this obviously-good-faith editor back on track? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that they are editing in good faith, behave civilly, and respond well to criticism of specific edits, but then keep coming back again and again with different angles to push a non-neutral pov into our voting system articles. I'm not entirely sure of their pov but it seems to involve the promotion of range voting and putting down instant runoff voting as an alternative, focused on their application to parliamentary elections to the exclusion of the many other applications of voting systems. For the latest see Talk:Instant-runoff voting § cherry picked and politically-motivated source in lede regarding an incident where they added a neutral and factual statement but chose an unreliable and non-neutral source. See also the other incidents I linked to at dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual majority criterion (2nd nomination), Template:Did you know nominations/Highest averages method, Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem/GA2, and a user talk page thread from last August.

Given the long-term disruption that this has involved, the time sink this has produced for multiple other editors, and the distortion of the neutrality of our voting articles, my suggestion would be to push them to edit some other topic that might be less fraught for them than voting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

CLC is not a newbie

Worth noting I've only been making substantial edits for under a year, so I'm still pretty new.

I don't see the issue with requesting a move for the primary page—in addition to only requesting it (rather than moving it myself), 4 editors expressed support for moving the page to partisan primary to avoid ambiguity with nonpartisan primary (@Philosopher Spock, @Toadspike, and @McYeee) and making the primary page into either a disambiguation or broad-concept article. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

CLC also started a move discussion on Talk:Smith set, and when I told Lime that we needed sources for the name, not "it makes more sense", they answered Are we not allowed to include "this term makes more sense to normal people" as a consideration at all, when choosing between multiple similarly-notable names? That would certainly have changed my behavior with regard to most of the moves I've made, since generally that's the justification I've used—in all these situations, the page move was from one common name in the literature to another, similarly-common name that I think is more intuitive or memorable to the average person. On a new article, this would make sense, but after 13 years at a title, I think we need a bit more than that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

...huh. TIL there's a completely different policy for page moves than there is for edits. (In body text there's no presumption against changing things—"I think this phrasing is better" is a perfectly valid reason for an edit.) Sorry about that, then. I guess one more question:

Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged.

When the policy says "controversial", does this mean something like "someone might like the old title better" (limiting undiscussed moves to stuff like fixing typos)? Or something closer to "the title is often the subject of dispute/disagreement"? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, "we're going to have to change the incoming links from several hundredthousand articles" is a decent indication of controversial. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, then I'm back to being confused; doesn't the redirect left behind handle that automatically? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't that problem caused by tagging the deleted article titled primary election as a disambiguation page and then people making semi-automated edits under the assumption that the tag was correct? Or is this a different incident? McYeee (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Involved editor here. Can you restore the deleted disambiguation to draftspace or userspace? I thought I remembered it having multiple editors, and that seems relevant to this thread. Regardless of how this thread goes, I'd also like to try to find those semi-automated edits again because they seemed to have a significant number of errors. McYeee (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Any chance that this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soulspinr? Specifically the sock Ontario Teacher BFA BEd was very into electoral systems and prolific. The edits here and maybe [1][2] seem particularly striking. (This is not the result of a comprehensive check.) --JBL (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to run a sockcheck, but I don't think our interests overlap much. I think in the first edit we're expressing almost-opposite suggestions, though; I was thinking of using AMS as the name for what most people call MMPR, i.e. the New Zealand/devolved UK system, then expanding the scope of the MMPR article to discuss other kinds of mixed rules. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think CLC is a sock. Judging by the sockpuppet archive, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and his socks seem to have focused considerably more on concrete political figures and Canadian politics, e.g. People's Party of Canada, Kevin O'Leary, and Justin Trudeau. Wotwotwoot (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Some additional notes and corrections on this:

For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections and then moved the article in mid-September,

I didn't rewrite the article much, except for the minimum necessary to change the title. The article was already about partisan primaries. However, at the time the article was written, these were the only kind of primary elections, and so the article did not make a distinction. The title "partisan primary" is more explicit and less likely to cause confusion.

In this case, the move was a response to the semantic drift, with nonpartisan primary having become a common way to refer to the first round of a two-round system, after the states of California and Washington adopted this terminology. The consensus on the talk seems to agree that the majority of the article belongs at "partisan primary", with disagreement about whether the old title of "primary election" should be a disambig or an article (McYee and Toadspike supporting an article vs. PhilosopherSpock preferring a disambig).

changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates.

I believe someone else changed it to a disambiguation page, which is what caused the disruption. I left it as a redirect, which shouldn't have caused any issues. I'm a bit confused by this ANI since nobody seems to have raised any actual objections to the move, just questions about what to do with the redirect that got left behind. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

my view is that this editor is an intentional civil POV pusher with frequent diffs, additions, or wholesale rewrites to social choice related pages to make them 1. more focused specifically on political elections rather than objects of mathematical study and 2. to emphasize certain refrains common in the amateur election reform community, namely those around IRV and STV's ability to exhibit certain behaviors, and extended & out-of-place soapboaxing about cardinal utilities vs ordinal

When called out on specific technical concerns this editor is willing to play ball by Wikipedia's rules, but the pattern of behavior shows an extremely clear lack of objectivity and technical expertise. And it is quite the burden of work for other editors to keep up with correcting all the affected articles.

please see Talk:Instant-runoff voting#Lede once again has turned into a soapbox

and associated recent (enormous) diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&diff=prev&oldid=1254146037 that had been actively being discussed on talk page without consensus Affinepplan (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

One particular comment in the thread Affinepplan mentions above is where Lime claims The ANI thread is for the unrelated question of whether I made too many page moves. First, that's not an unrelated question, second, it's the quality of the moves, not the quantity, and third, it's not about if your moves are disruptive, but your editing in general. I'm focusing on the moves in this report because they can do the most damage, but they are hardly the only problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or no, CLC's editing at Instant-runoff voting continues to be out of control. Today, after being reverted for an 11k-character addition to the lead (!) with the reverting edit summary being "30 references in the lede, skipping levels of header - please review WP:LAYOUT" their response was to reinstate even-longer versions of the same changes, twice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @SarekOfVulcan reverted some of my changes on the grounds that I'd accidentally skipped levels in headers (i.e. went straight from 4→6), as stated in the edit summary. As a result, I reinstated the changes after correcting the formatting errors. If Sarek has some other disagreement regarding the content of the page, he can undo my edit and explain why he still dislikes the new version in the edit summary. (By the way, I did it twice because a user complained about the length of the restore the first time. I self-reverted the page back to Sarek's version, then broke the edit into two chunks to create an easier-to-read diff.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

see also the re-addition here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&diff=prev&oldid=1254208089 of a reverted diff due to POV concerns without having reached consensus in an active topic on the talk page Affinepplan (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe, fundamentally, that actions speak louder than words, even in a place like Wikipedia, a very huge collection of words where words are kinda the point.

My now months-long interactions with CLC have generally been more about how this editor edits, although what they've added or removed has also been a feature.

• From day one, this editor has made large, sweeping changes (frequently more than 5000 characters and often more than 10,000) with little to no edit summaries. Those large edits frequently span multiple article sections, making it very hard for other editors to review them.
• They have removed sourced content without any explanation or sourcing to explain why the original content is not valid. (removed in this again large edit, partially restored by me here)
• They have, either deliberately or inadvertently, ignored or misinterpreted guidelines such as MOS:BOLDSYN (such as here)
• Even before they moved a years-long stable article that is the straw that broke many other editors' backs and led to this entry at ANI (Instant-runoff voting to Ranked-choice voting), they attempted to make "Ranked-choice voting" the lead "title" of the article, as seen here.
• They have introduced factual errors which can easily be refuted by consulting sources—see the changes to the formula used to calculate the Droop quota in this (again, massive, multi-section) edit (something that may have been able to be avoided if their edits were smaller).

At every turn, I and other editors have attempted to point out the inconsistencies and problems with not just the content of CLC's edits but also how those edits have been made. Over months. All of this feedback, all the requests for discussion and consensus, have fallen on very deaf ears.

So as far as assuming good faith goes, CLC has had that, by a mile. And however conciliatory and reasonable this editor may be able to make themselves sound, if you look at the timestamp of that comment and then compare that to the timestamp of Sarek having opened this discussion here, you can also see a related pattern.

Then you just have to look at the actions CLC has taken while this ANI discussion has been happening. They have continued to edit in the same way and they have continued to edit one of the very same articles that was highlighted in this ANI entry. They have continued their problematic editing in other electoral system–related articles throughout this process. Those actions do not speak of someone who respects this process or respects the norms and guidelines of the larger project. So ultimately, I don't care at this point what CLC says—I care about what they do. And what they have done, and continue to do, is be disruptive and dismissive of anyone who attempts, however nicely, to get them to course correct while spouting empty apologies and promises of modifying their behaviour and blaming it all on being a new editor when they get called out.

Given all this, a move restriction is not a suitable action to fix the many issues. The recent "bold" move of Instant-runoff voting is a symptom of the problem, not the underlying issue. I believe a substantially lengthy topic ban for CLC around any articles to do with electoral systems is the only remedy at this point other than a full ban. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I entirely concur with your summary. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed move restriction

I'd like to suggest that Lime be restricted from moving any pages until they demonstrate that they understand when pages should and should not be moved. At Talk:Preferential voting, they just suggested moving the dab page to a (disambig) title and redirecting it to Ranked-choice voting, because TL;DR is that it looks like the majority of searches for PV are from Australia, which uses it to mean RCV. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a straightforward application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suggested the page instant-runoff voting/RCV is the primary topic, because "preferential voting" is overwhelmingly an Australian term used to mean RCV. I raised this issue on the talk page for discussion and did not move the page myself. How would that be disruptive? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that proposing to move a page on a talk page should not be used as a basis for imposing a restriction on moving pages -- seeking consensus like this is what we should be encouraging. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Asking, or starting a move discussion, isn't what I'd consider disruptive. My concern is that Lime might go "ok, one person agreed with me, nobody else said anything, we're good" and moving a long-standing article title without any further input. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a reasonable thing to comment on the talk page, to make sure it doesn't happen. On the other hand, restricting a user's move privileges because they hypothetically could have used them incorrectly, but didn't, seems bizarre; if anything, seeing an editor ask for consensus shows they're less likely to move pages incorrectly.

(And is "one person agreed with me" never enough to declare consensus, even for minor moves? At the extreme, I don't think correcting typos requires any discussion on talk. I'd like more clarity on exactly how much consensus is needed for different page moves, ideally with examples.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There are about 80 thousand examples of move discussions if you search for "Requested move" but usually the easiest thing to do would be to start one and list it at WP:RM (well a bot does that for you, you just need to use the template).You get free examples that way, and only in pages that you're interested in, and as an added advantage if anyone gets dragged to ANI it would likely be someone else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a very nice advantage for sure :) I'll keep it in mind. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m a fairly green editor and I find it very instructive to read and participate in open move discussions at WP:RMC and see how they are closed. You’ll see what’s controversial, the numerous policies and other considerations that support a title change/move, and how consensus is assessed. Typically if there is low participation or opinions are mixed a request is relisted or closed without moving. Moves are rather drastic changes and often arguments that might have been persuasive if we were deciding what to name a brand new article aren’t enough to change a stable title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

PirateWires Wikipedia Investigation (Administrator Notice)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am wanting to give a notice that Pirate Wires conducted a really detailed "investigation" into several Wikipedia editors over the last several months. The long news article includes several editor names and possible (I say possible as I am not casting accusations myself) violations of canvassing/coordinated efforts on Wikipedia as well as on Discord in regards to the Israel–Hamas war.

I am not, myself, accusing anyone and wished to bring this to the attention of administrators for further investigation to see if this article has ground to stand on or is baseless. The editors directly mentioned in the article will receive an AN/I notice as the news article itself accuses them of violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have done no further investigation and am just simply doing the initial alert to the matter. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The statement "Pirate Wires conducted a really detailed "investigation" into several Wikipedia editors over the last several months" is inaccurate. As I have said elsewhere, I see the primary utility of articles like this as

• a useful reminder of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect
• a way to identify actors with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation and/or a willingness to generate or inject disinformation into Wikipedia's systems either directly or by employing external vectors.

The Tech for Palestine group is probably worthy of some investigation however, but as I said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Canvassing, this does not appear to have happened, or at least no one has presented any evidence at the PIA5 discussions or at AE about individual accounts.

For background see the ongoing discussions about a possible PIA5 case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral).

Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Now see, I did not know it was already being discussed in ArbCom/other places already. That pretty much answered that. This discussion (on AN/I) can be closed as it seems there is already something being looked into and my alert was just late to the party more or less. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The "investigation" is heavily based on material published at WP:ARCA. There's not a lot new out of it. It's extremely lazy journalism if you could call it that. TarnishedPath^talk 04:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Out of interest, and setting aside the casual defamation, I will be trying to track the effects within the PIA topic area. These kinds of articles are not unusual, but this particular one is quite a nice sharp external signal. So, it may be possible to see the effects as the information impacts the topic area and editors. I have seen this and this so far. "already being discussed" is maybe the wrong way around. There is discussion about a possible PIA5 case. The discussions have included quite a lot of statistical evidence. Unless it is a coincidence, I assume the article was produced to provide external pressure on ArbCom to reduce the likelihood of them not taking the case. So far me, as someone interested in the complicated dynamics of the PIA topic area, it is quite an interesting development. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for each of the editors involved in the ARCA discussion around PIA5 to be asked to confirm or deny whether they had any involvement in the Pirate Wires article? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so and I'm not sure what this would achieve or what the goal with this questioning would be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody needs permission to ask questions in the PIA5 discussion and hope for open and honest answers. I have already asked BilledMammal since the article uses some of their data. If they have some background/context, they can share it openly, or they may know nothing about it and be surprised by the way their work has been used. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland, that seems reasonable. Do you know whether the second analysis in the Pirate Wires article - on co-editing - was also prepared by a user and discussed at ARCA? It is a nonsense analysis of course - it would look much the same if you cherry picked a similar number of editors who spend time in any topic area. But the interesting question is whether that analysis was prepared by Ashley Rindsberg (the write of the Pirate Wires article), or by someone else. And how did they know how to pull the underlying data? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Zero0000 asked something similar here so you can see my answer there. I hope the analysis wasn't done by anyone allowed to edit Wikipedia because it is horrifyingly dopey, the kind of thing that would get you immediately fired and escorted out of the building in my world. I don't know how the data was generated but the account list obviously comes from BilledMammal's list of accounts that have made 100 or more edits within the topic area since 2022. But the connection between the authors "amongst top 30 members of this group" statement and reality is not obvious to me e.g. why is Surtsicna there? They might be quite surprised to learn that they are pro-Hamas Wikipedia hijacker and might consider it defamatory and want the author to pay for them to buy a new nicer house or maybe a new car. It's easy enough for someone with access to generate page intersection counts for 30 accounts and produce a crosstab with code and share it as a google sheet, or maybe someone foolish did it manually using the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In February, an explicitly coordinated effort was launched when leaders on a group called Tech For Palestine (TFP) — launched in January by Paul Biggar, the Irish co-founder of software development platform CircleCI — opened a channel on their 8,000-strong Discord channel called “tfp-wikipedia-collaboration.” In the channel, two group leaders, Samira and Samer, coordinated with other members to mass edit a number of PIA articles. The effort included recruiting volunteers, processing them through formal orientation, troubleshooting issues, and holding remote office hours to problem solve and ideate. The channel’s welcome message posed a revealing question: “Why Wikipedia? It is a widely accessed resource, and its content influences public perception.”

Uh, I am not an Israel-Palestine DS/GS understander, but I seem to remember when GSoW, EEML, etc did this we responded with something other than "close the ANI thread within an hour and tag the journo's page with {{notability}}". Is this being addressed at the arb case?? jp×g🗯️ 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's because there is existing precedent for dealing with this in the PIA area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I agree enforcement is needed if there is an active lobbying group.

It may be that Samisawtak and BilledMammal can help with the investigation, as it seems they have previously been looking into this "tfp-wikipedia-collaboration". Per Samisawtak's edit page summarizing their 347 total edits, 159 were made at User:BilledMammal/tfp Wikipedia collaboration, 6 were made at User:BilledMammal/Samisawtak/tfp Wikipedia collaboration, and 1 was at User talk:Samisawtak/sandbox/tfp Wikipedia collaboration/Lily Greenberg Call.

Looking further All 17 editors who worked on User:BilledMammal/tfp Wikipedia collaboration may be able to help.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Samisawtak is one of the editors involved in running the group. As for the article itself, it misses the actual issues with the group:

1. It is affiliated with an actual EEML-style mailing list, to the extent of coordinators recruiting for the list on the channel
2. It is used by community-banned editors, who have since being blocked engaged in the off-wiki harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors, to request edits be made - requests that are acted upon
3. It instructs non-ECP editors to make edits in the topic area

BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, are you able to provide a list of the community-banned editors? I am always looking for test data from these kinds of actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what I can provide without violating WP:OUTING, sorry. BilledMammal (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about the Wikipedia rule that even connecting 2 anonymized strings across the on-wiki/off-wiki boundary is treated as a form of outing, a rule so strange to me that I can't even remember it. Nevermind then. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: agree that is for a private investigation by the proper authorities. In the meantime, please could you explain why they were using your user subpages for their work? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

They weren’t. They deleted those pages in an attempt to cover their tracks; I had them restored to my user space. BilledMammal (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

JPxG, I would say, no, the Tech For Palestine group is not being addressed in the PIA5 discussions in any detail, although it has come up. Some information about the group has been available since last June I believe, or thereabouts. One thing that is interesting about the Discord screenshots for me is statements like "I have been levelling up on WP by doing quite a few simple edits". This is what a lot of people do of course to cross or tunnel through the ARBECR barrier, but I would like to know whether this kind of "levelling up" activity is being done inside or outside of the topic area and whether the accounts have EC privileges or not. Most of the topic area is not EC protected. Many edits by non-EC editors in the topic area are given a pass/not noticed because they are "simple edits" or look/are constructive. This is a backdoor that is probably being exploited by activists and ban evading sockpuppets every day. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I learned about this article and thread because WeatherWriter pinged me on my talk page. I'm sure there will be a proper investigation but just want to preemptively say that I have never heard of TFP, do not work in tech, and don't even have a Discord. Thanks. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have heard of TFP, and despite being one of the top 30 members of a powerful pro-Hamas group hijacking Wikipedia, and despite having okay tech skills, I did not even receive an invitation to join the group. This is the kind of thing people with feelings tell me can feel hurtful. I admire your optimistic 'I'm sure there will be a proper investigation' attitude, a view that I do not share. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Say what? This seems extremely farfetched and far too convenient to be true.

Given that the vast majority of this world's population aware of the Israel-Hamas War statistically seem to be against the human rights violations that are happening to the Palestinians, and this is the international version of Wikipedia, isn't it far more likely and reasonable that a larger amount of Wikipedia editors would simply also share this viewpoint, whereas the editors who support the actions of the government of Israel would, without external backing, be considerably fewer in number, whereas the cited news article in question is a doctored, possibly Mossad-ordered, smear campaign in order to get almost all hindrances out of the way, so any sources that the Israeli government doesn't like can quickly be discredited and banned from any usage, especially Al Jazeera, and then remove virtually all public documentation of ongoing Israeli crimes against humanity from all Wikipedia pages related to the ongoing conflict? David A (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I would not describe the hypothesis outlined here as likely, nor as reasonable. jp×g🗯️ 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This would assume that there are no editors willing to push back on what appears to be an active whitewashing/disinfo campaign, which doesn't pass the laugh test in the PIA area or on Wikipedia in general. Again, this has come up before. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems like the kind of product produced by one or more fools for the sizable credulous fool market rather than by smart professionals in the IC. I assume the author's main objective could simply be engagement/chasing clicks, but the objective of anyone who helped them to produce the product, and that 'anyone' could be no one of course, is not obvious to me. It might become clearer over time. For example, it is already being used to undermine confidence in RfC closures and argue for relitigating RfCs, which is quite interesting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I should add that in my experience, play-acting being a part of the Israeli IC doing important collection work is quite a common feature of anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists interested in Wikipedia, and it is a comedy goldmine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there have been a few separate quite recent attempts to completely remove the English version of Al Jazeera as a reliable source in the past, as well as at least one attempt to remove +972 Magazine as well, so if this "journalist" succeeds in getting most of the editors who are against human rights abuses against Palestinians banned en masse, without any reliable evidence, that effort could easily be resumed by others and passed this time around. Then again, I have an overactive pattern-recognition. David A (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A difference, I think, is that the arguments made to challenge the reliability of sources like Al Jazeera here tend to resemble the product of rational actors, whether you find them persuasive or not, rather than someone off their meds with paranoid dreams of anti-editor pogroms. Where are the Fred Fishers? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies if I went too far with the paranoia then. There has been quite a lot of agitation against Wikipedia from news and social media that support the Israeli government recently, and I have even been subjected to a few death threats here in Wikipedia because of it. David A (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not you David A, the author of the article. The lack of clarity in my comments, kindly brought to my attention by Zanahary, is apparently never going to improve. Yes, editing in the PIA topic area can include a free death threat package thanks to the generosity of the more extreme anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists. This package deal appears to expire though as I don't receive them anymore. The attacks on Wikipedia and editors will no doubt continue, and probably escalate. My view is that being attacked personally, defamed or whatever is not interesting. Don't let it distract you from continuing to do things that interest you here. The topic area needs as many editors as possible with a diverse set of biases and source sampling strategies to avoid an article neutrality version of this problem when population size n is too small. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland:

thanks to the generosity of the more extreme anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists

FYI, this behavior goes in both directions. From what I've seen, the unacceptable behavior on the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel side is also more organized; for example, the covert canvassing on the pro-Israel side was organized by a single LTA spamming emails, while on the pro-Palestine side it is an organized group of editors. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt there are attacks and all sorts of shenanigans from both ends of the spectrum. Sadly, I haven't been attacked by anti-Israel/pro-Palestine activists apart from the odd outlier, so from my perspective I must be doing something wrong. From my observations going back over a decade, it's just an objective fact that anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activism that targets Wikipedia and editors exists, has organized and lone-wolf components, has involved on-wiki and off-wiki individuals and multiple organizations (e.g. CAMERA and NGO Monitor) including multiple state sponsored influence operations. The pro-Palestine/anti-Israel activists will presumably learn from their opponent's mistakes and will probably have the capacity to dwarf pro-Israel activities if they choose that path. Visibility into these systems is obviously very limited, so it's hard to say anything sensible about the extent and effects, which may be small right now. Either way, Wikipedia is stuck in the middle and needs better countermeasures. Or maybe just let it go as it is an expensive problem Wikipedia does not have the tools to solve right now. I'm curious what would happen if part of the topic area was set aside for the activists and ban evading types to do whatever they want without ECR or sanctions with disclaimers added to the articles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I should add the caveat that I'm very skeptical about my ability to understand or say anything accurate anything about the topic area because it's too complicated, and that skepticism even includes being unsure whether promoting things like civility, collaboration, social harmony is the best approach to produce the best articles in the long run. The topic area is apparently more attractive to new editors that Wikipedia in general (assuming this is accurate) and they very often don't come here for social harmony. Maybe lots of randomness and conflict would work better in the long run. I have no idea. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that at least in my case it isn't about being a tribalist and anti-Israel. It is about being pro-human rights (and animal rights) in general, and that I both believe in matter of fact reliable information being publicly available, as well as "not in my name" and "never again for anyone", the latter meaning that I don't want any innocent blood on my hands, even indirectly by association. David A (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, for many people out there, including journalists and people with an apparent elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation, just following Wikipedia's rules can be indistinguishable from being anti-this or pro-that. The way for people to improve Wikipedia is for people to make the effort to learn the ropes, become editors and follow the rules. But apparently that is not as fun as complaining, attacking people, coming up with conspiracy theories etc. People love that stuff. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• If admins want to investigate Tech for Palestine, I welcome it. Separately, we shouldn’t assume editors simply editing in ARBPIA are part of some coordinated campaign. Evidence is needed. I am neither involved in Tech for Palestine or a coordinated ARBPIA campaign. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Shahray

Shahray (talk · contribs) was blocked on 13 October for 24 hours and again on 18 October for 1 week due to continued edit warring. In their unblock requests (none of which were accepted), they did not indicate any understanding for their block. For example, they wrote: I haven't got any explanation about why one small revert from me is considered "disruptive", "damaging" or "edit-warring" and requires a block.[3]

Despite this, there has been no improvement in their behavior (if anything, it has gone the other way) since the block expired on 25 October. They made edits to Kievan Rus', which I reverted with explanation before they restored this again, saying "You are confused". I reverted again and asked them to start a discussion on the talk page. Rather than starting a discussion on the talk page, they replied to me in a completely different discussion at Talk:History of Ukraine telling me: I won't create hundreds of talk pages just because you always disagree with me for precisely no reason.[4] I told them this was a misuse of the talk page. I also noted that they had already started a discussion about similar changes (as an IP) before and there was no consensus for this. The same IP had previously left me a message on my talk page asking why I reverted their edits (made by Shahray), before they self-reverted and wrote the same message as Shahray.[5] I continued the discussion there, but Shahray's response was This is not a discussion done by me and why should I care?.[6]

They also made an edit to Old East Slavic that I reverted because there was already plenty of discussion about this on the talk page with clear consensus against such edits, but they restored their edit saying in the edit summary that this was "unrelated".[7]

I also asked an admin for advice at User talk:Asilvering#Question (more diffs there) because I found it impossible to discuss edits with Shahray without them accusing me of editing in bad faith but they decided to reply there and they wrote that I should stop complaining to other editors like a child.[8] This was also after I told them that I did not wish to discuss with them further due to previous comments they made to me such as this, even though I clearly explained why I opposed their changes. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

They also made an edit to Old East Slavic that I reverted because there was already plenty of discussion about this on the talk page with clear consensus against such edits
I havent looked at other edits but this particular edit was legitimate. The discussion was opened on a talk page Talk:Old East Slavic#Old Ukrainian where you haven't responded but have proceed with removal, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus against such edits (that you had previously made), as this was discussed at Talk:Old_East_Slavic/Archive_2#Old_Ukrainian_2024 and in previous discussions. You attempted to include this and there was consensus against this change. You decided to start a new discussion today without any new arguments. Mellk (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

... where we see sourced opinions removed [9] because "I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much". That's not a valid argument for removal of an academic opinion in a field. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I already explained this at Talk:Old_East_Slavic/Archive_2#Old_Ukrainian_2024. You are trying to bring old content disputes into this. Mellk (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There you just rejected and undoed opinions sourced to academic researchers one after another without offering an improvement: Yes, except this is not an accurate summary of his findings. You are not telling where, in your opinion, it is not accurate, nor offering a better version.

This is not how collaboration is supposed to be. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much" -- this is what another editor wrote. Multiple editor opposed your changes and you are still trying to make this discussion about this. Mellk (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we take your approach and return edits, since there is also @Shahray now opposing your removal. Should we also remember that there were other editors in previous discussions supporting changes.

Probably not, because this would lead to the Tyranny of the majority. Instead, we should not be calling to "there is more of us therefore we are right", but base our arguments on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This editor @Mellk was already formally warned by other administrator to not make unreasonable reverts and be responsive [10].

After a few responses on the talk page, they refused to give any further details and dropped out of conversation [11], considering my request to simply not waste time of other editors because of their own poor understanding of the subject as a personal insult (rather than maybe improving upon their knowledge), use what they wrote higher as an evidence I guess.

I tried to continue the conversation and asked about what they don't have concerns with for example [12], they haven't given me any response, and instead they moved to complain to other administrator.

Also, I have added changes in Old East Slavic page according to the sources, yet they reverted them with a summary "see talk page", where there's just only one completely unrelated topic. Other editor was confused about why they deleted my sourced edit as well [13]. Yet here they act as if their revert was justified, furthermore they made another revert [14], despite there being obvious concern from two editors, and didn't go to the talk page.

So as you can see they don't care about the attitude they've been warned about, they continue to make more unreasonable reverts and be unresponsive on the talk page.

From my side, I wasn't reverting them. Initial concerns behind my blocks was edit warring, and I wasn't reverting this user recently, so it's unclear about what "behaviour" are they talking about, or why did they make this report in first place. Shahray (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's another recent revert from Mellk [15], with no summary they removed Principality of Moscow and replaced it with Russia, which is anachronistic term for that time period.

Another unreasonable revert from them, yet you can clearly see they think this behavior is justified. Shahray (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Mellk once again makes unreasonable reverts [16]. First their summary of reverting me was "WP:GEOLINK". I solved the issue with removal of a reference in second word. But then they reverted me again with a summary "Not an improvement". What this supposed to mean is unknown. Furthermore instead of explaining what they did, they continue to concentrate on personal side as you can see below. I think this is just disruptive editing, they slow down the process of implementing changes with nonsensical summaries and personal assaults, expecting to block me. Shahray (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think User talk:El_C#Another controversy with Mellk says it all, really. Going to the admin who blocked you for a week for edit-warring to tell them that you are still edit-warring, expecting this to turn out in your favour, is such intense WP:IDHT that I don't know what else there is to say. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

And they are still edit warring now. The personal attacks were already a step too far, but this is getting ridiculous now. Mellk (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not edit warring, I followed 1 revert rule everywhere respectively. I told the admin to look at Mellk's yet again unresponsive behaviour and unreasonable reverts, which they have been already formally warned about. I also addressed them how you told Mellk to go to a notice board with no evidence of my guilt [17] and then ignored my comment, telling to "use it as evidence" [18] (???).

I guess there are a few questions to you as well if this is an attempt to deliberately target me. Shahray (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Bear in mind that as always, reverting isn't a right so you can easily be unacceptably edit warring even if complying with 1RR or whatever. Also with highly contentious articles where it's likely something has been discussed before, it often makes sense to check out the talk page and archives and see if something has been discussed before. If it has, while WP:consensus can change, it would often be better to at least start a discussion before making edits rather than trying a WP:bold edit. This is especially the case if something has been discussed multiple times or had significant backing or support last time it was discussed. In fact in such cases it might even be best just to assume it's unlikely consensus has changed and so not start a new discussion let alone trying to make a change. And even if you do feel it's worth starting a new discussion, you should generally mention or even link to previous discussions and explain why you feel there should be a new consensus. Also while there's too much personalisation from all sides in the article talk page discussions to me, you do seem to be worse at it. Notably with your child comment which okay wasn't on an article talk page but was still a clear personal attack. I think all of you need to concentrate on the content issues in the article talk page. If you can't come to consensus by yourselves, use some form of WP:dispute resolution to try and get more people involved. Importantly, concentrate on what reliable sources say not your personal view or interpretation of history or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think dispute resolution is going to help here, for WP:IDHT reasons. -- asilvering (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I was not reverting them more than once.

While "childish" might have been personal, I think that's how you can describe this behavior. I haven't made personal attacks on the talk page, Mellk dropped out of discussion, yet continues to persist on deleting my changes.

I tried to continue discussion and told them to just let my changes be viewed by other editors [19], yet they haven't answered at all.

Maybe you can suggest them if they don't want to discuss, then they should stop blocking my changes? Shahray (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Above they have continued the personal attacks and they are still making unsourced POV changes like this. The issue of POV editing was raised before. In addition, they are claiming that they are being "deliberately targeted". I don't think there is any clearer IDHT than this. Mellk (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Feudal fragmentation.[20][21][22] This is despite their false claim of adhering to 1RR. They are also edit warring at Second Bulgarian Empire with a false claim that there is consensus for their changes.[23][24] Mellk (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You were implementing changes that you didn't have consensus for, and I asked you to go to the talk page.

Please do not continue to implement changes without getting consensus. Shahray (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is false. Anyone can take a look at the history. I suggest an indefinite block for IDHT. Mellk (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise Shahray (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Mellk just told me here [25] there's no consensus about the fact that "Russia" didn't exist during Middle ages.

They implemented a change without consensus once again [26], and in noticeboard they wrote "This is false".

Below you can see they are continuing personal assaults in my side instead of solving the dispute on the talk page. I remind you they were formally warned to be responsive. Shahray (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Here they removed all references to Russians, including removing the sentence "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" despite this being sourced. So this also shows they are here for WP:RGW. Mellk (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:ONUS. They once again insist on mentioning "Russia" in the middle ages, despite the clear consensus in historiography there was no "russia" at the time. What's worse is that they don't want to solve the disputes themselves and instead focus on personal assaults like getting me banned, use all their comments above as evidence. They were already formally warned for that disruptive behavior. Shahray (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Here they removed all references to Russians, including removing the sentence "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" despite this being sourced
I checked the source and I can't find anything regarding "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" there. Please provide the quote. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The quote from the source is "Mercenaries were also recruited, including Russians." Mellk (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. But the timing is a mess, the book talks about The army of the Second Bulgarian Empire was not, of course solely Cuman. The new state controlled large areas held by pronoia cavalry and other troop. Mercenaries were alo recruited, including Russians, unlike the wiki article which says In the 1350s. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It is unclear what is meant by "Russians" in 14th century. WP:ONUS, and I don't think anachronisms should be included, what do you think? It would be proper to move discussion to the talk page. Shahray (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Should be resolved in talk. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert, I created new topic there [27]. Shahray (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been in the article since at least 2015. You also cannot overrule what the sources say and dictate to others on what is an anachronism when you were earlier writing about 'supreme Ukrainian rulers' of Kievan Rus.[28] The issue here is that your editing is purely disruptive. Mellk (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Mellk interrupts the process of editing in the article Name of Rus' [29], they accused me that I "didn't address the issue", although I did as you can see in history of changes. I told them that other editor can easily revert me if they want, but they didn't listened and continue to revert me, and then wrote "edit war". It looks like WP:Hounding or provocation to be honest, can you do something about them already? Shahray (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Another editor reverted you and you proceeded to make three reverts without bothering to start a discussion about this. This article is on my watchlist and I have made plenty of edits before, so this accusation of hounding is baseless. @Asilvering: given their admission of meatpuppetry below and the blatant edit warring now, is a block warranted now? Mellk (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Then other editor can easily revert me again, or not if they won't see any issue.

Clearly other editors had issues with them as well like NLeeuw said, but now their behavior is just provocative. I don't have issues if I'm being reverted or proved wrong, I even self reverted in Kievan Rus' [30], but Mellk now just interrupts other editing when other user hasn't responded yet, instead they think they can respond from their side. Shahray (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shahray: You should have opened a discussion on the article talk page immediately instead of edit warring at the first place. By venturing to the talk page, you might also have noticed that the lead was discussed very recently and made to more closely conform to MOS:LEAD. This discussion involved Mellk, so your point about hounding is moot. The bit about Vikings which you used to justify your edit was added by an editor who is now banned, and is not a great example to follow. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for response. I will open discussion then on the talk page. Still it was weird to see Mellk interrupting when you can also revert me. Shahray (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't want to heave too readily onto the pile given they've only reverted once, but I can't discern a difference in behavior between that detailed here and that over at Christianization of Kievan Rus'. Maybe this is petty of me, but "I'm just sorting the list by alphabetical order" is one of the surest signs of tendentious editing I generally see—statistically speaking, you'll get to use the alphabet as a fig leaf for your otherwise-inexplicable sorting in roughly 50% of situations. Remsense ‥ 论 05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense interesting point, I never heard someone had issues with alphabetical order. Belarus, Russia, Ukraine are usually put in alphabetical order, like in the List of states of Bel, Russ, Ukr, there are no concerns about this. And what else is inexplicable there from my side? Shahray (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this is petty. They are showing the same kind of behavior at Vladimir of Staritsa now. Mellk (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Hi, I saw that this ANI was going on, and I'd like to point out that User:Shahray = 46.200.75.110. diff diff. Shahray addressed me as if we interacted before on my talk page, but the previous message under that heading was by 46.200.75.110. Not sure how helpful that is, but I think it contributes to the information above about this user's disruptive behaviour. As far as I know, Shahray is being very WP:POV-pushy and prone to edit-warring. Even as this ANI is taking place, Shahray is edit-warring at Kievan Rus' with multiple other editors over the past several days. Although there may be some legitimate content issues, Shahray was not providing constructive solutions (at least that I could see). I got tired of trying to reason with Shahray, and decided to stop the discussion and disengage, because it was getting nowhere. I'm not involved in the edit-war, as I don't think I could do anything to make Shahray stop and behave in accordance with our conduct and content policies & guidelines. Seems to me Shahray is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but to push their own POV and to disrupt all sorts of processes and protocols in order to make their opinion stick in the mainspace. We can't keep that up forever if the situation does not improve.

A word of caution; I understand the frustations some other users have voiced here over Mellk; I've had my disagreements with him as well. I think Mellk should be reminded to be careful in observing our policies and guidelines, and prioritise discussing issues on talk pages and tagging the user whose edits he disagrees with, instead of reverting the other user's edits. This can often help prevent conflicts (especially in the Eastern Europe content area). On the other hand, I know that Mellk is acting in good faith, and I have worked with him before in solving several long-standing disputes, and that is valuable for our community. I would ask the other participants here to take these things into account. Hopefully this contributes to a solution. NLeeuw (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, okay, while I acknowledge that it could have been done from my account (by other person I may know), but it wasn't directly done by me. Regarding myself, I'm trying to be more constructive about the whole topic, I don't concern myself with fringe ideas.

So you can view my changes and note if anything is wrong with them instead, as I already done similar requests to other editors [31]. It would be much more helpful than just unrelated to me accuses. I don't think there is any legitimate content issues, but in some parts I've expanded the content for specification. I wasn't edit warring with other editors, I initially reverted Mellk once, then made compromise with Mellk's position [32] (as it seems they only opposed the mention of Rus' land in the talk page for some reason). If that doesn't helps, I can self-revert, no problem.

Mellk's summaries for their reverts are often pretty vague and lack explanation, and it's hardly any better on the talk page, as they quickly drop out of discussion. Shahray (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This message was posted the minute after the IP self-reverted. Are you suggesting now that someone else is editing on your behalf? Mellk (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mellk. I think that evidence is as good as any to confirm that Shahray = 46.200.75.110. I find Shahray's denials to be unconvincing. Shahray also doesn't seem to understand that with legitimate content issues, I might theoretically agree with some of the points they were making previously, if only expressed in a clear way while offering a constructive way forward. If Shahray now thinks I don't think there is any legitimate content issues, I am wondering whether I wasted my time in trying to understand the points they raised on the Kievan Rus' talk page in the first place.

It also shows Shahray's apparent obsession with the same topic, namely ethnonymy and toponymy in content areas of Kievan Rus', Ukraine, Russia etc. In other words, what we name people and territories is Shahray's only interest. Shahray seems to treat Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for their POV of what we should call things, and to think it's okay to unilaterally and repeatedly change texts of how we name things without consensus. This is quite concerning, and frankly, frustrating and tiresome.

The first remarks made in this ANI illustrate this well: Shahray was blocked on 13 October for 24 hours and again on 18 October for 1 week due to continued edit warring. In their unblock requests (none of which were accepted), they did not indicate any understanding for their block. People who are either incapable or unwilling to understand the rules and to abide by them, and instead repeatedly disrupt the project, will eventually exhaust the chances the community is willing to give them to show that they have improved their conduct and have learnt from the sanctions imposed upon them for having failed to do so previously. I recommend an even longer block this time, and if the situation still does not improve, we may have to say goodbye to Shahray, as their activities are more unhelpful than helpful for the project so far. I'm trying to be fair and balanced; everyone deserves a second or even a third or fourth chance, depending on the circumstances. But eventually the chances run out. NLeeuw (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverted for now [33] Shahray (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to dedicate time to find more solid sources. There are deficiencies in articles and over-representation of a traditional Russian POV, but a decent amount of work should be done to overcome it. See my user page for some info on where academic sources could be found. I suggest to concentrate on one subject first, for example on under-representation of Old Ukrainian in articles. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. NLeeuw (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Old Ukrainian, it depends on how often English-speaking scholars use this term, and I don't see that being the case.

@Nederlandse Leeuw, you can instead look at my edit and see if there's anything wrong with sources or wording, and point it out on the talk page, if you want to help. Now, in my opinion you're too concentrated on personal sides, I don't have any issues with getting reverted if there is objective reason, but I could have been too fast with reverting Mellk there. Shahray (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Shahray topic-banned. Shahray, please do feel free to appeal this (not sarcasm, I promise); I think this discussion has gone as far as it can go, here. Sorry to those involved that this took me so long - I was really reluctant to make a second block in the same case. AE admins can take it from here. Or they can come back and trout me, whatever works. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is a fair and balanced solution for now. Shahray gets the opportunity to make valuable contributions to other topic areas that they presumably do not have such a strong emotional investment in as to complicate cooperation with fellow editors. This may demonstrate that they are willing to build an encyclopaedia beyond a single issue. Kievan Rus' is already a highly contentious article / topic area as it is; every week or so there is another discussion about toponymy and ethnonymy (and the article title, of course, despite WP:KYIV/WP:KIEV and the big talk page banner we placed there). There is already a war on in real life; let's not have a virtual one here as well. ManyAreasExpert has given a good recommendation for the way forward. NLeeuw (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Page-banned editor making malicious accusations again

Singleton4321 (talk · contribs), who was blocked from editing Oliver James (psychologist) following a previous ANI report (see link), has engaged in WP:IDNHT fights on their talk page with other editors reeking of WP:TRUTH, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPA, not to mention the same behavior that got them banned there in the first place. The difference being they blame everyone but themselves for their predicament and prefers doing so despite advice by editors on how to appeal otherwise and believe that falsely and maliciously accusing editors they disagree with of engaging in a collaborative conspiracy does not count as WP:NPA. Borgenland (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent discussion at that talk page is lengthy. Can you please link diffs that support your accusations? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m on mobile so this may take a while. See this ridiculous WP:FRINGE rant: [34] Borgenland (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

And then the repeated banging on other editors demanding explanations as to why their offending behavior was reverted. For example:

[35] despite this being explained already in [36] and in spite of a warning given to them for circumventing their ban [37], which is reinforced by these WP:IDNHT replies [38] and [39]. Borgenland (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Left a final warning on their talk page. Next step is a sitewide block with no talk page access if this continues. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I blocked for 48 hours for TBAN violations. They can dispute their ban, but they can't continue to engage in disputes over the topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

or we could do that. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the crossed wires. We're in agreement about next steps if current behavior continues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I get the impression a site ban will have little effect on this editor, as he's not really interested in editing any other topic but himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I still say this is an imposter bent on making the article subject look like an inept self-aggrandizer. The world-renowned, universally feted, incomparably accomplished expert and best-selling author he keeps telling us he is wouldn't act this way. EEng 05:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It would be very useful to know one way or the other. Is there no agreed administrative mechanism by which this could be accomplished? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  None which wouldn't violate WP:OUTING. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  So anyone's free to come along and impersonate an article subject just to make them look bad? In this case I guess it doesn't really matter, because they are now indef blocked anyway. But if the supposed "real" subject suddenly turned up, say after being tipped off by a friend, it seems surprising there's no way of dealing with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Now literally asking for a block at his Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  At this stage, either they are illiterate or they are just simply pretending to be blind. Borgenland (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is not the first time that WP:COMPETENCE has sprung to mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely and TPA revoked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by Político World

Político World (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel), continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You may get a faster response at WP:AIV. DonIago (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago: - I have previously been asked not to bring reports of unsourced content to AIV, as anything that isn't obvious vandalism or spam is out of AIV's scope. Waxworker (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the severity, persistent BLP violations or rapid widespread insertions are usually disruptive enough to be reported there. Getting back to this specific case, given the transparent gaming of AC and their failure to WP:COMMUNICATE, they should at the very least be blocked from mainspace until they engage with community concerns. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if username also violates WP:USERNAME. See Politico. Borgenland (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The network/kid's show space has a lot of these types of 'corporate name mix' vandals, so this has to be a sock of one of them, but which one I'm not sure just on a quick read. Nate • (chatter) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Judging by the accent on the first "i", I'm thinking that it's a rather the word "politics" in one of the Romance languages. Español? It's obviously not affiliated with the webpaper Politico or anything. not an Admin BarntToust 21:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

• Searchmycollege (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

TPA revoked. – robertsky (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If his behaviour is bad enough to block, his domain should be blacklisted:

• searchmycolleges.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.searchmycolleges.com

Based on my past years of spam-fighting, this guy will be back with another account unless his domain is blacklisted. Blacklist any associated domains, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A. B., it would probably be best to report this at the appropriate page regarding the blacklist. I don't think any action will be taken regarding this proposal on ANI. I know that I don't know how to add URLs to the blacklist and I don't think most editors or admins do either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Will do. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Done:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#searchmycolleges.com ^([permalink)

Note that the username doesn't end in "s" but the domain name is plural: searchmycolleges.com. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I a bad person for being amused when someone misspells their spamdle? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You’ll be more amused than this person when they realize their site’s blacklisted.

I don’t know if Google still does this, but back in the day, Google reportedly consulted our blacklist when deciding whether to de-index a site for link-spamming. That would really, really hurt.

They’re lucky they only spammed our wiki (I checked). If they’d spammed just one other WMF site they’d be globally blacklisted at Meta. That’s 700+ WMF wikis plus most other non-WMF MediaWiki sites by default.

Don’t block spammers, just blacklist them (assuming they’ve gotten multiple warnings). If you block them they’ll just return with a different account; instead watch their account for other spam domains. Blacklisting is more effective and really gets attention.

I blacklisted 100s, maybe 1000s, of domains as an admin here and on Meta before my 9-year hiatus. I’d also block any other of their domains I could find. I usually gave 3-4 warnings before this. Blacklisting is potentially so consequential I didn’t do it cavalierly. It can be a lot of real money if other sites use what we've done when compiling their own blacklists.

Paid editing is a bigger problem now. After several warnings, I’d blacklist any of those domains, too, and monitor the paid editor’s future edits for more blacklisting.

I got some threats from some spammers so I’m protective of my real life identity.-—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Implicit threat to contact employer

Hello,

Roberto221 has implicitly threatened to contact my employer.

On a number of occasions, he has uploaded non-free depictions of coats of arms of Roman Catholic bishops using, in my estimation, improper licensing - free versions may be made, and there are indeed thousands of them made by various Wikipedia heralds; moreover, he uploads them using {{Non-free seal}} which concerns government entities. I have, as such, requested speedy deletion on a number of these uploads that seems to be improperly licensed, most recently File:Coat of Arms of Kevin Thomas Kenney(Saint Paul and Minneapolis).jpg. In response to my most recent request, Roberto221 stated "Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him.." (cf. revision). I am a Catholic priest and this implicit threat to contact my bishop, an attempt to disrupt my employment based on good-faith efforts, is very worrisome. I would like it addressed in whatever manner is deemed appropriate.

Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree that Roberto221's implied threat to contact an employer was uncivil and unnecessarily escalatory, particularly given that it was over good-faith speedy tagging of likely copyvios. I think a simple warning to avoid similar comments is in order. Since no effort appears to have been made to release private information, I do not believe additional action beyond that is necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be good form for Roberto221 to retract the threat to contact a bishop. While not exactly the same as a legal threat, it has a lot in common with one in terms of its chilling effect on editing, and should be considered unwelcome for the same reasons. Certainly, it should be clear that any attempt to double down or act on this threat is grounds for an indefinite block: Wikipedia disputes are resolved on Wikipedia, not through threats of offline discipline. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new policy, WP:No episcopal threats. EEng 20:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We can pair that with WP:No threats of divine retribution _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly agree that this is completely unacceptable behavior clearly designed to intimidate. This is now how we resolve disputes, if Roberto221 can acknowledge that an maybe strike out the offending comment that would be great. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that any threat to escalate to one's higher authority (an employer, police, or religious authorities) warrants a 4im warning at best and an indef more usually. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Despite the comments here all day, no one had posted a warning to editor Roberto221's user talk page so I have done so. Discussion at ANI isn't effective if no action is taken to inform editors that behavior is unacceptable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverend, Once again you have failed to grasp the concept of non-free. It was uploaded as a non-free file with its use limited to ONLY one page as any other non-free file. If you keep persisting on these attacks, then I will have no recourse but to bring this up with the editors/admins. Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him..

Regardless of the situation with the coat of arms, this was a completely asinine and unnecessarily belligerent escalation, and should not be done under any circumstances. It is fine (and desirable) to escalate a dispute to other editors, or to a noticeboard such as this one; it is absolutely not permissable to escalate them irl. Editors here are free to speak the truth, and to edit without partiality, on the basis of pseudonymity -- this is an obvious threat to carry out WP:OUTING. On the basis that there may have been a simple lack of understanding of the seriousness of the policies involved here, I am giving them a single warning -- anything like this in the future will result in a block. jp×g🗯️ 00:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait... Do you suppose maybe he wanted a word with the bishop about nonfree will? EEng 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Calvinism and Arianism both on the WP:ANI at the same time, what a time to be alive ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Allegations of bad faith editing at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine by Great Mercian and Rc2barrington

[40] Great Mercian: It's people like you that are only dragging out this already long discussion. [directed at another.]

[41] Rc2barrington: @Great Mercian is right. This endorsement is essentially the same as making the original comment themself.

[42] Great Mercian has since been made aware of WP:GSRUSUKR.

[43] Rc2barrington already CTOP aware of WP:CT/EE.

[44] [45] Requests to both editors on their individual TPs to strike their comments as uncivil/personal attack.

Since the request Great Mercian has continued to edit but has neither struck the comment nor otherwise responded.

[46] Rc2barrington responded at their TP: There has been some evidence-backed allegations made that other editors have ignored evidence and have engaged in disruptive editing, against Wikipedia rules. [emphasis in original]

[47] Rc2barrington was advised at their TP that the appropriate place to raise an issue was ANI. The initial request was repeated. They were also advised of WP:GSRUSUKR. Neither action has been taken by Rc2barrington.

Cinderella157 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

More recent:

[48] Rc2barrington: Don’t keep engaging in disruptive editing please. At another editor because they expressed a particular view. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157, so the personal attack is saying an editor(s) is dragging out a discussion? Were there other edits? Maybe it's the time I've spent on ANI over the years but that seems pretty mild. I'm not sure it warrants a visit to ANI. What resolution were you seeking here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an aspersion of bad faith editing made even more explicit by Rc2barrington in a CTOP/GS area where higher expectations of conduct are expected. There discussions involve many editors in respect to adding North Korea in the infobox and more specifically when we should do this. The pressure to do this now is being pushed by many non-ECP editors or editors that have limited experience. It comes down to what NEWSORG sources are actually saying v what some editors want/see them to say. Listing a nation as a belligerent is an exception claim and "supported by" is deprecated except where there is a strong affirmative consensus (RfC). It is like there is a competition to add NK and the issue is causing disruption. Editors are starting to see this as a them against us battle. The fall of Bakhmut created a similarly hostile editing environment. These are not the only two instances I could raise but others are generally by drive by IPs. They will likely get worse. An admin striking these with an appropriate comment that the page is being watched (and doing so) will have some positive effect. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be little doubt among reliable sources that North Korean troops are now in the Kursk region near Ukraine. I do not want to intervene directly in the content dispute but it seems to me that describing the North Koreans as "belligerents" at this time is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. They could be there for mutual training or to poke the nose of Russia's many opponents. A geopolitical warning, as it were, and preparation for elite North Korean troops to operate outside their largely closed society. If reliable sources in days and weeks to come report that North Korean troops are actively attacking Ukraine, and inflicting and suffering casualties, then obviously all previous bets are off. Until then, I believe that policy requires a cautious and conservative description of North Korean involvement in that horrible and bloody war. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, you have effectively summarised the views of experienced editors but the TP (and at Russo-Ukraine War) is being bombarded to change this now. And the aspersions against those opposing a change now for the reasoning you give are starting too. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

(ec)But, Cullen328, do you think this complaint calls for admin action? It sounds like the whole talk page discussion is potentially divisive and that goes beyond two isolated comments by these two editors. If similar comments (or worse) are being made by other editors, I don't know that these two editors should be sanctioned. Maybe the talk page should be protected for a while if there are problematic drive-by comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I am not recommending any use of the administrative toolkit at this moment in time. I will probably be awake for another hour or so and then will need seven to eight hours of sleep until my California morning. Maybe when I wake up, the North Koreans will be engaged in full scale combat in Ukraine. Maybe not, I hope. My goal at the moment is to discourage editors from getting "too far in front of their skis" about what reliable sources are saying at the particular time that I make this comment. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that at the same talk page, a user is pushing for adding conspiracy theories to the article. May be someone with the knowledge of American conspiracy theorists and the sources they normally use might want to have a look. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to address the ongoing discussion about adding North Korea to the infobox for the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. It’s clear from both the talk page and reliable sources that a strong consensus has emerged to list North Korea in the 'supported by' section. Numerous editors have provided evidence-based arguments in favor of this, backed by statements from multiple intelligence sources. Despite this, repeated reversions and resistance from a few editors have delayed progress and complicated what should be a straightforward update based on evidence.

I’d like to emphasize that ignoring well-supported information doesn’t align with Wikipedia’s commitment to accurate, up-to-date content. At this point, the continued pushback feels less about policy and more about individual resistance. I would appreciate a moderator’s help in ensuring that this evidence-based consensus is respected and that editors who aim to maintain Wikipedia’s accuracy are not unnecessarily stalled or undermined.

I actually attempted to open up a noticeboard discussion about this, but was prevented due to WP:GSRUSUKR and WP:CT/EE. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As for scuba, I endorse him and his views on this topic. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note this earlier similar incident bought here that was resolved by admin intervention but without sanction. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I was the editor who requested that earlier intervention. I was hoping to head-off such problems (ASP/PA) swiftly. I was in the process of writing a comment to Rc2barrington at the talk, but checking their talk page on a hunch discovered this.

Briefly, GreatMercian's [i]t's people like you ... is a comment on contributor regardless of what follows. In a fraught discussion it is inadvisable to start a comment with this. The evidence-backed – rather evidence-free accusations – of ignoring evidence and disruptive editing is Rc2barrington copying aspersions cast by Scu ba, the editor involved in the aforementioned earlier similar incident. These may appear mild, but this is a contentious topic area and the long-term editors there are regularly fielding drive-by accusations: of being propagandists, pushing Putin's or Zelenskyy's narrative, being overtly pro-Ukraine, hiding the truthTM, etc, etc. We tend to ignore or archive (rather delete as NOTFORUM) those comments.

Finally, as an aside, if only the majority of participants had as calm and cool-headed assessment as Cullen328, we'd have a better article and fewer debates. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I made that comment because I was just so sick and tired of stuff like this. There are actual news reports of North Korean troops inside Ukraine now, but apparently we have to get a consensus now instead of just putting it on the article like we've been able to do with the timeline articles. I haven't been as active on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine articles as I used to be (mainly because it's too depressing now) so this is kind of a shock. It baffles me as to how that discussion is still open. I won't be striking my comment as another user's argument (and quite frankly, I don't care to look up who) relies on it. It's 3am for me now so I'll be going. I don't really want any more to do with this. Great Mercian (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Great Mercian. And yes, I endorse this comment. I have called multiple times for moderator intervention, but no, I won't mind if this is taken up and this page is protected to extended-confirmed, but this needs to be resolved, somehow. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to say, Great Mercian does seem to have a tendency to make personal attacks against other editors during discussions. While not in the same topic area, here's another hotbed (different CTOP) where they did so [49] [50]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

And yes this is also related to the thread that is currently below (#Modifying a closed discussion to directly accuse another editor of bad faith and subthread #User: Rob Roilen, but I felt it better to bring up here since the problem of personal attacks by Great Mercian fits much better here than below IMO given the similar problems even if it's a different topic area. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. Having slept on it, I think frustrated would be a better word to describe how I feel. Great Mercian (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Also see here, where they casted aspersions about my nomination of Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism for deletion, but I'll honestly AGF on that comment, since it is a controversial topic. SMG _chat 13:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Modifying a closed discussion to directly accuse another editor of bad faith

The editor @Trulyy has modified a closed discussion on Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe in order to directly accuse me of bad faith edits. This editor, and others, has taken issue with my cautioning of other editors to remain neutral in their point of view when writing content for the article. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Without going deeper into what is getting to be a fairly messy content dispute, this at least is accurate: Trulyy modified a hatted discussion by adding an extra edit that was unsigned that was a comment purely about Rob Roilen some nine hours after it was closed. They should knock it off.

What I am also concerned about is that Trulyy has apparently gotten in the habit of mislabeling substantial edits as "minor," frequently when it's in a heated conversation involving ongoing political topics. This was labeled minor, as was a substantial edit about Ken Paxton's edits in a capital punishment article [51], adding a sentence describing a murder as an example of missing white woman syndrome [52], adding new content discussing Rich Lowry's use of a racial slur [53], adding new content quoting a Jack Posobiec comment and describing it as a thread of violence [54], and so on. While it's not worth more than a trout the first time, I'd remind Trulyy that WP:MINOR is only to be used on superficial changes to spelling, grammar, or structure, or blatant vandalism (or the result of a rollback) that nobody could reasonably argue with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your contribution. I cleared up my reasoning for making the aforementioned comment a couple minutes ago. In regards to why it was purely about that user, it was because he was the dissenting user who did not understand what everyone else in the thread seemed to understand.

The article was, from all times I observed it, written from a neutral point of view, using objective language. Just because it was regarding negative actions, such as making jokes about racial stereotypes, does not mean it was edited in a negative tone. From what I gather you understand that, but I am letting you know just to clear up some of Rob's concerns. After reading the article, the reader was given the opportunity to make their own conclusions, not opinions given to them by the editor. As one user put it:

Buddy, you're trying to whitewash the article. NPOV doesn't mean "the comedian who was racist should have his page scrubbed clean, otherwise it's not neutral".

In regards to labeling substantial edits as minor, I apologize for doing so, I have not read up on all of wikipedia's rules in a while and was not completely familiar with what constituted a minor edit by wikipedia's standards, so thank you for informing me so I can do better. Trulyy (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was just talking about the two issues (the one brought up and the one I saw). That whole talk page could definitely use a lower temperature, but I didn't mean to convey the idea that I thought that was your fault; it was simply meant as a general observation. If you will just leave hatted conversations be and be careful with that minor edit checkbox, that's certainly enough for me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your concern. I am not used to editing talk pages, this is maybe the third time I've edited a talk page, and as the thread I was trying to reply to was at the bottom, I did not take the time to scroll to the top to see the discussion was locked. Furthermore, when trying to post my reply in the locked discussion, I got an unclear error rather than an explanation of why I couldn't post, so I assumed it would be fine for me to edit it directly.

I'm regards to 'accusing you of bad faith edits', I don't recall doing such a thing, but what I do know is you repeatedly tried to edit a withstanding edit because you didn't feel the source was reliable, when it is listed as one of wikipedia's reliable sources. You were presented by several users with references explaining that your opinion on what a reliable source was does not trump wikipedia's lasting standards, and if you disagree with that to bring it up in the appropriate area, not in an edit war on a random page. Nonetheless, you continued to delete other information because you thought the sources unreliable, even though they are approved and acclaimed sources.

No one took issue with your notices. Several times you tried to bring up completely irrelevant arguments such as argument from authority when nothing remotely resembled such a thing.

As for disrespect and assuming bad faith, you started, from the get-go, doing that as seen below:

"What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost. You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact. What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you?"

Trulyy (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, your inability to assume good faith and engage in a civilized manner with other editors can be observed in the following thread:

collapsing long, undifferentiated copy-paste
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The reason that the article is locked due to arbitration enforcement by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It is also because of multiple unsourced additions to the article and additions of contentious topics without a reliable source. There is no way an article could be “biased” because any article needs a reliable, secondary, and independent source to talk about it and the editor adds information from that article and puts it in there. If you think that it is an issue, you can go to the arbitration committee directly. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "There is no way an article could be “biased” because any article needs a reliable, secondary, and independent source" Do you not see how problematic this is? When the mainstream sources Wikipedia deems as "reliable" regularly publish sensational, outright false information portrayed as fact, these sources are no longer reliable by definition. I think you guys need to take a long look at Argument from authority Like I said, this is just going to end up in a loop where privileged Wikipedia users block anyone else from making edits while pointing to The Rules and shrugging. Absolutely zero accountability. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) If you have an issue with it, you can start a thread at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Telling me anything isn’t gonna get you anywhere because I don’t care about arguing about the reliability of sources. “Privileged” editors are editors who were chosen by the community to bring out their best of their ability to uphold the policies and guidelines that were made and written by the community themselves. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "I don’t care about arguing about the reliability of sources" - @Cowboygilbert And there it is, openly admitted. What a shame, Wikipedia deserves better. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) @Rob Roilen, It’s because I trust editors who have spent time and time again trying to find the reliability of sources and the effort that they have taken to try to find it. I trust editors like I trust others in my life. If you want to continue to argue with me, I will simply just ignore you. I don’t care about arguing, I care about talking, if I have an editor coming to me to talk about the reliability than I would give them the policies and information that other editors in the community have written and produced to be able to teach the future of editors. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC) If the left tries to use jokes made by a comedian as sort of political weapon totally ignoring its context and the largely racially mixed crowd they have been made infront Harris and her cronies in the media must be in deep trouble. 80.131.53.87(talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC) The context is the subject of the article was at a political rally and was making racist, misogynistic comments. There is no way for his comments to be taken out of context. Trulyy (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC) And you have not, so far, provided any proof that the comments were indeed "racist" or "misogynistic". If you don't like them personally, that's fine and your right. But there is a distinct difference between "jokes dealing with race and women" and "actual racism and misogyny". Rob Roilen(talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What proof do I need to provide? My edits and others have provided proof of such. It literally fits the definition. Making fun of a certain race in a derogatory manner is textbook racism.  Trulyy (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What do you think? Cowboygilbert clearly agrees with wikipedia's reliable sources and does not feel like arguing with someone who will not change their opinion... Trulyy (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry, but your opinion on what is a reliable source does not trump wikipedia standards when editing wikipedia. If you have a problem with a source you deem unreliable you can bring it up with an administrator, but just because you feel a source is unreliable does not change wikipedia decision. Trulyy (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)That's not true. Administrators have no special authority other what is or isn't a reliable source. You should look to relevant policies and guidelines to judge if a source is reliable, and use dispute resolution if there is disagreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am unclear as to which part of the long response isn't true. My best assumption is that you are referring to Rob Roilen's disregard for reliable sources as outlined in the relavent policies and guidelines. As was a major aspect of the conversation, myself and other users explained multiple times. that removing other's content on the basis of sources should only be done if the source is not designated reliable by wikipedia

or if it has been resolved through another remedy.

To clear things up in brief, Rob Roilen thought that he had

personal liberty to remove standing content based on his personal opinion of sources rather than longstanding

wikipedia descions.

I told him he is free to edit without using sources he doesn't like, so long as he is using other credible sources.

As was demonstrated in his comments against established and credible sources, For example:

"mainstream sources Wikipedia deems as "reliable" regularly publish sensational, outright false information portrayed as fact, these sources are no longer reliable by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal

k: Tony_Hinchcliffe#c-Rob_Roilen- 20241028171900-Cowboygilbert-

20241028171400

"You and other editors have continuously referred to outlets like The New York Times and Axios, for example, as "reliable sources""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Hinchcliffe#c-Rob_Roilen-20241028182600-Trulyy-20241028181200

Rather than resolve it in accordance with wikipedia's policies, he has decided to remove content with sources he doesn't like, and, when being told explicitly that is not how to judge sources, instead of acknowledging that fact, continuing to come after other editors. Trulyy (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify regarding bad faith edits as I am rereading the thread, I did not accuse you of making bad faith edits, I accused you of targeting other users accusing them of bad faith edits, which, please see your below quote:

"You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact."

The above example is textbook assuming bad faith, and such behavior discourages well-intentioned users from editing the wiki and contributing to the platform. I did not accuse you of anything I have not proven with wikipedia's definitions. Trulyy (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Needless to say, for a new, well-intentioned editor trying to contribute to freedom of information to be attacked by an editor both insulting, belittling, shaming, and harrasing them for editing an article in a factual, unbiased manner that they didn't like will deter other editors and scare away current ones. Trulyy (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Both Trulyy's and Rob Roilen's posts on that page are unhelpful. Trulyy blundered in modifying a closed discussion, but at least it was their only edit and they undid it as soon as it was brought up here. Rob, meanwhile, is a single-purpose account needlessly ratcheting up the WP:BATTLEGROUND vibe of that page (and continuing to add more heat than light by skipping anything like conversation and escalating to this noticeboard). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I made every effort to civilly explain my and others intentions, but at no point were any of my points taken into consideration. I feel Rob is not interested in the benefit of the platform, rather trying to punish those whose edits he disagrees with. He had many better, quicker, and more efficient ways to resolve this, but instead chose to try and come after me more than he already has. Trulyy (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As credit to my assumption, his topic was not constructive whatsoever, especially not to the standard of others, and he devoted only one sentence to the actual issue he reported, thus showing he was picking something against the guidelines, which was an honest mistake, and using it as an opportunity to make the above post and try to come after me. He made no indication he wanted a resolution, an understanding, or anything. I have edited on Wikipedia for a year and have devoted dozens of hours to the platform. This is my only dispute that I have gotten into that has lasted more than three messages and wasn't resolved in a satisfactory manner. Trulyy (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Protip: this matter is visible to many eyeballs now. Best to let others handle it now, if there's any handling to be done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not a "single-purpose account" and I certainly attempted to converse with other editors before bringing this to the noticeboard.

I am genuinely troubled by the effort other editors are willing to put into discrediting my input. I'm not sure how to more clearly state my mission here; I am fully, 100%, without a doubt committed to maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and accuracy. That is explicitly why I have continuously cautioned other editors from A) injecting their own personal opinions into articles, B) allowing their own personal opinions to interfere with their objective assessment of a source's reliability, and C) simply claiming a source is reliable because "it's on the list of reliable sources" or "I've always trusted ____". In the context of writing an encyclopedia, these are completely inappropriate. Rob Roilen (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You have not continuously cautioned other editors, as more than 50% of your edits are on that talk page alone.

As myself and other editors have told you many times, when it comes to editing wikipedia, claiming a source is reliable because it's on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources is the polar opposite of 'completely innapropriate'. Trulyy (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. In the context of that article, what are some sources you would consider reliable? Trulyy (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User: Rob Roilen

On the "2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden" article, Rob Roilen has been relentlessly making changes to the article (including removing sources for reasons that from my understanding are not Wikipedia's rules for what makes a source valid). He also pushing for the article's removal due to bias. Broadly, his argument is that including reactions to the event that made comparisons to Hitler and Nazism is "sensationalizing", "biased", or invalid due to the outlet or sources having consistent past articles criticizing Trump (implying that a source that has consistent rhetoric is not valid). There are three main things in his arguments that make me believe this person is acting in bad faith.

1. Instead of using the rules of the site as a justification for edits and accusations of bias, Rob Roilen is using his own standards for what constitutes neutrality. After it was explained to him that a completely neutral tone is not possible when the content of the article is not neutral (aka, False Balance), he ignored this and continued to state that the article is not "neutral". I explained to him that the neutral tone he wants is not possible, in the same way that an unbiased tone isn't possible for an article covering a topic like slavery. The other side can not be portrayed as equal in validity.

2. As well, he consistently justifies his reasoning as being because "the page should be written as an encyclopedia", and his specific use of "an encyclopedia" is (in my opinion) a deliberate way of separating the discussion from Wikipedia's rules, and pushing for what he thinks is valid based on what he expects from an encyclopedia (these are his words). The only time he has said "Wikipedia" is when he is criticizing the rules and standards of the website itself.

3. The edits he is making (including removing the introduction section summarizing the issues and rhetoric Trump used, as well as the overall reaction) are fundamentally changing the purpose of the article and what warranted its creation, and I believe this is motivated by a desire to see the page removed. Articles on specific campaign events are not created unless it was notable, had a strong and widespread reaction, or directly caused a significant event, otherwise there is no real reason to create an article on a specific rally. By removing criticisms towards the event and continuously pushing a False Balance, Rob Roilen is misleading readers and trying to make the article less factual for the sake of being unbiased. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this. We've been having frequent clashes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden. Great Mercian (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

64.228.236.176, as it says on many places on this page, you have to inform an editor when you start a discussion on them on a noticeboard or mention them in a serious way. They should be encouraged to participate here. Please do this now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I have invited him to join the discussion here. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, 64.228.236.176. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've stated my case in multiple threads now, including another ANI, so this is starting to feel like harassment from a handful of editors who would like to see my editing privileges limited, but just to have it here:

My standards for neutrality are Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"NPOV...means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis added)

It also says:

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (emphasis added)

I see on my talk page I've been accused by this IP user of being "manipulative" for posting these policy excerpts.

While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight.

I believe very strongly that Wikipedia's foundational principle of neutrality should take precedence over merely reflecting sources' biases. This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint.By reflecting all sources—both their strengths and inherent biases—with balanced skepticism, Wikipedia avoids taking implicit stances and maintains a neutral, trustworthy stance across contentious subjects. Rob Roilen (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this is also a good place to mention that the above user @Great Mercian recently said to me "The more I look into it, I'm more convinced you're either not real or just a troll" and even "I'm half convinced you're a Republican sleeper agent." Rob Roilen (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've yet to see you rebuke such claims @Rob Roilen: Great Mercian (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are personal attacks and contrary to wikipedia policy. I would not stand by them so flagrantly. Just10A (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think Rob Roilen is a Trump supporter or even Republican, though he could be (he has stated he is not Republican and I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt). I think the more likely reason is that the user is a fan of Tony Hitchcliffe's comedy and doesn't like that his page is connected to an event widely viewed negatively. That may be presumptive but based on how this began with the Tony article, I think it's likely that this is a motivator. Note: this is just an observation, I do not think this motivation is disqualifying, had Rob Roilen acted appropriatley his edits may have been acceptable. The user's own words and actions are the main thing that I think are worth scrutinizing, not his political views, which I am not comfortable assuming. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks, refer to the lightest example, but most convinient for me, of what Rob said prior to a single interaction with any editors:

"What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact.

What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you?"

Source Trulyy (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that his behavior is incendiary and unacceptable. But there isn't a "but they did something wrong too!" exception to WP:PA, much less doubling down on them on the noticeboard. It's contrary to policy regardless. Just10A (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Rob Roilen as you seem to have used original research to challenge the acceptability of reliable sources, and have cited WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an acceptable source, I suggest your arguments are better suited for noticeboards rather than within an article that you adamantly seek to delete. soibangla (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Might I recommend that any administrators observing this case refer to the extensive talk page of @Soibangla Rob Roilen (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Rob Roilen I wholly recommend everyone deeply scrutinize my Talk page soibangla (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume Rob Roilen is pointing to your temporary ban from editing one particular article focused on Trump's assassination attempt. I do not see how this is relevant here, since this is not a discussion on soibangla or this different article. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume that will be done. Rob has been rebuked by dozens of editors within the last two days, has made personal attacks, been shown wikipedia policy and ignored it because he doesn't like it. Escalated issues needlessly instead of trying to get them resolved, and violated many of wikipedia's policies. Trulyy (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it extraordinarily strange that I'm the one being accused of "ignoring Wikipedia policy" when there are multiple examples of me directly referencing and quoting said policy in an attempt to get other editors to actually follow it. You do understand that it's possible to be wrong about something even when you're in a room full of people who agree with you, right? Rob Roilen (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The manipulativeness was what you left out and what you emphasized. First, you emphasized "editorial bias" while completely ignoring "as far as possible", which is clearly an important point of nuance. You have not been able to prove that the article and sources used are properly sourced bias, which as I explained, is acceptable. What you have engaged in is editorial bias, by definition. Your interpretation is also manipulative:

"This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint." This is factually untrue. I have shown you repeated proof that this is not realistic in all scenarious, and the site's rules reflect this. For example, an article on evolution cannot be accurate if it doesn't lean towards the viewpoint that evolution is true. By this extreme logic, you would have to present the Creationist perspective equally. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Correction: You have not been able to prove that the article and sources used are not properly sourced bias 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this for the article Tony Hinchcliffe. He showed blatant disregard for wikipedia's guidelines, attacked other editors, and then reported me to the notice board, although everyone else in that thread and the talk page thread all sided with me. He has been downright nasty to myself and others. Trulyy (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to another editors opinion on a thread regarding my mistake that Rob escalated:

well now the problematic matter appears to be that Rob Roilen has cast aspersions on others who have disagreed with their adamance in deleting the articlc, including suggesting that an editor's Talk page be examined by administrators for some sort of suspected malfeasance soibangla (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Trulyy (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait a sec. An IP who's just joined the 'pedia about two days ago, participating only at the aforementioned page. Now making an ANI report??? GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

is there something intrinsically improper about that? soibangla (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes there is. Who's the IP, that appeared suddenly? GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm not sure why this surprises you, IP accounts file complaints at ANI all of the time. Most IP accounts have addresses that are dynamic and change regularly so this editor probably edited with other addresses in the past. I do not think they are an editor who is contributing logged out if that is what concerns you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you're correct. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editors are perfectly entitled to contribute as 64.228.236.176 has at length on the article Talk. allegations have been suggested by two editors that 64.228.236.176 was recently banned but no concrete evidence has been presented. incidentally, aspersions have also been cast upon me, which might be considered sanctionable. soibangla (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you maybe argue with the points being raised before going with an ad hom? Like most regular users of Wikipedia, I have simply not made edits or engaged in discussions, until this particular article's vote for deletion caught my attention. I disagree with this deletion, so here we are.

Rob Roilen has also only started being active the last couple days, roughly 99% of his edits are on this article and the one on Tony Hitchcliffe (apologies if the name is botched). This is not one of the reasons I am criticizing him, his longevity is not an important factor to me. I am criticizing his arguments, edits, and overall conduct in this situation. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

And if this is not already clear, unlike Rob Roilen, I have not made any edits or deleted sources. I am strictly keeping this in discussion only. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about who you are. But, I'll let others decide if there's a reason to be curious. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is my identity important? 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If my identity is cause for concern, who are you implyng I am? 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop feigning injury and asking questions you already know the answers to. Remsense ‥ 论 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the hostility, Remsense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't understand the question, which put my hackles up: of course it's important for our purposes who the identity of editors are in the terms we have been discussing. Remsense ‥ 论 05:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I was asking a question, how is that feigning injury? You appear to be implying I am a specific person, I am asking for validation on this. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

but you aren't letting others decide if they're curious. you have decided you are. soibangla (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

64.228.236.176, if you want a better response to your complaint, it is best to include "diffs" or links to specific edits that you find problematic and that concern you. Typically a report comes with 3-7 diffs so that editors reviewing it can see if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Right now, this complaint is just editors bickering with each other. To take any action, you have to include evidence of misconduct that goes beyond a narrative complaint. I tell this to many editors new to filing complaints at ANI so this is not me taking a side, just informing you what is generally needed for any action to happen. There are situations where an admin will investigate a situation themselves but it helps the filer to point out what behavior they see as problematic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

well now the problematic matter appears to be that Rob Roilen has cast aspersions on others who have disagreed with their adamance in deleting the articlc, including suggesting that an editor's Talk page be examined by administrators for some sort of suspected malfeasance soibangla (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I may need some time to put all the citations together (and I am not super familiar with formatting so this will require more research) but that seems doable. I didn't think this discussion would take up this much of my time but I am invested at this point. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My comment remains the same. Without diffs/evidence, I doubt any action will be taken because it looks like a disagreement over content or just two editors who don't get along. You don't need a lot of diffs, like I said, a half dozen examples can be persuasive (or not, it depends on what you choose to highlight). I recommend that this doesn't devolve into bickering between editors or someone will just close this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made this a subthread of the earlier one. While the earlier thread was started by Rob Roilen, as often happens with these sort of threads, Rob Roilen's own behaviour was also being discussed and it concerned the same set or articles and issues. Splitting the discussion is unlikely to be helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

On the general issue, I have to say from what I've seen that Rob Roilen is still fairly unfamiliar with and having trouble accepting our sourcing requirements and other fundamentals of editing here. While we were all new once, I'm not convinced these articles especially so close to the US election is a good place for them to be learning. They've already been given a recent American politics CTOP alert so IMO barring considerable improvement it's worth an admin considering if it might be productive to force them to learn the basics somewhere else or at least sometime after the election if they want to stay in recent American politics articles. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There is something of an issue with this over here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CNN. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is asking questions against Wikipedia policy? Rob Roilen (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, but continuing to ask it after it has been answered might be seen as wp:disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Irony Rob Roilen (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Rob's primary objective at the Tony Hinchcliffe article seems to be removing the "racist" label on a "they're just jokes" basis. That he is arguing to exclude "mainstream media" underscores misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Various examples of needless fighting and policy issues, all from Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe:

Oh I see, so we're just going to do that thing where we get stuck in a loop where you claim that mainstream media articles are "reliable"

Why is your sense of urgency suddenly gone? Someone was so eager to call Tony "racist" and lock down the editing of the page for a month, but when people push back we're just going to run out the clock?

It could even be argued that these statements about Tony are libelous.

Ah yes, step in to seriously limit who can freely edit information but then refuse to participate in the ongoing discussion. How diplomatic

None of it is helpful. Lest we think Rob is the only one, or that he's escalating in a vacuum, there are several users making wildly unhelpful comments on that talk page, so I sort of get Rob's strong response in places. The problem is none of his comments seem to move discussion forward, and it's an account focused on this topic. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if editors would stop implying that I'm only here to edit a single topic, since this appears to be an effort to discredit my input. Is my input only valid if I've edited a certain number of pages? What's the threshold?

To contextualize the quotes above, it should be noted that they are from when the Tony Hinchcliffe article was being aggressively edited to portray Tony in an objectively negative light directly after the Madison Square Garden rally. Saying that my comments did not move the discussion forward fails to take into account that the article is currently much more tonally neutral than it was before I happened to show up.

I also find it deeply troubling that other editors who have expressed personal disagreements with my tone are literally calling for me to be "forced" to follow the rules in a way they subjectively approve of. Please tell me I'm not the only person here who sees the very real issue with that. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The context for "single-purpose account" is WP:SPA FYI. fails to take into account that the article is currently much more tonally neutral - even if we say you were right on the content issues, being right doesn't discount the negative effect of a flurry of unnecessarily escalating comments with no basis in wikipolicy. I don't have anything else to add, though. If you don't want to be seen as an "SPA", find some good sources to summarize to improve a totally unrelated article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Rob Roilen: To give an example of why your approach is harmful, consider this edit [55]. The edit itself was productive, AFAICT, neither source used in our article describes what Cardone said as misogynistic. Your edit summary was so unhelpful however that it would have been better to not use an edit summary. AFAICT, no one has argued the comment is inherently misogynistic on the talk page. But even if they had, it would be irrelevant. What matters is whether sources widely call what Cardone said as misogynistic not whether it's "inherently misogynistic" (whatever on earth that means) nor whether an editor feels it is or isn't misogynistic. I actually nearly reverted you because I thought it was more WP:OR from you but decided to check the sources just to make sure and found that you were in fact correctly reverting some other editor's OR but with an edit summary that made it seemed like you were the one doing the OR. It's easily possible barring the edit history being further annotated that some other editor might come to the same conclusion as me but not check the sources and so revert you. Working in a collaborative environment means it's incredibly unhelpful to make editors think your edit was improper by using an edit summary which suggest that. But further, it's extremely unclear that you even understand why your edit was productive. If you don't this means you could have easily made the mistake of removing something which was in fact widely supported by secondary sources based on your own interpretation/OR; or in other words the fact you happened to be right in that edit is a happy accident as much as anything. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point I have no idea how to more clearly explain that a handful of blatantly biased sources does not qualify as "widely reported", and how even if something is "widely reported", if it completely flies in the face of the basic definition of words, it is not accurate enough to use as source material in an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT, no one has every said 'a handful of blatantly biased sources' qualifies 'as "widely reported"'. But as for your second part well that's the problem. If you're not willing to accept the basics of how Wikipedia works then you shouldn't be editing here at all and you definitely shouldn't be editing a hot button CTOP article. Since multiple editors have tried to explain to you how Wikipedia works and you're still either not understanding it or not willing to accept it, it's getting to the point where there's no point trying further. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So to clarify, you believe it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to use blatantly impartial journalism as sources while simultaneously holding neutrality as a foundational principle? Rob Roilen (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

blatantly impartial journalism Why yes. That is neutral journalism by definition. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean "partial", but either way it matters little.

Per BIASED (which is a guideline), "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. [...] Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

If you have a problem with sources considered reliable, rather than contentiously push changes based on your personal assessment that X or Y source is too "biased" to be usable, you should take it up at the RSN. Over there is where said assessment concerning the sources' bias will matter. You may even find that other editors agree with you; many sources, after all, have had their agreed-upon reliability debated, or even changed, during Wikipedia's history. During content discussion, however, your subjective opinion does not trump community consensus around the usability of sources.

There are processes for reassessing sources, or otherwise building consensus around questions like these. Use them. LaughingManiac (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to say "blatantly partial journalism", thank you for the catch.

But again, I don't know why I need to clarify this, and this is not my personal opinion, but editors of an encyclopedia should be informed and intelligent enough to be able to determine themselves whether or not the sources available to them are appropriate for the given topic, especially when contentious, and regardless of whether or not Wikipedia has their name in green or red on the perennial sources list. A formal debate over the reliability of a source does not need to be opened every time an editor points out inappropriate bias in commentary from a source typically viewed as reliable.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources even notes that "context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation." Rob Roilen (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"editors of an encyclopedia should be informed and intelligent enough to be able to determine themselves whether or not the sources available to them are appropriate for the given topic"

Editors are free to hold whatever subjective opinion they have on the appropriateness of sources. But the active use, or avoidance, of said sources is decided using consensus as opposed to that opinion.

"A formal debate over the reliability of a source does not need to be opened every time an editor points out inappropriate bias in commentary from a source typically viewed as reliable."

Perhaps not, but you specifically stated that these sources were "blatantly partial", with the basic contention that this makes them unusable for this topic. That's your opinion. It's a fine opinion to have, and one that you could well defend at RSN. It's also not something which trumps community consensus on the subject.

This will be my last message here, as I am uninterested in a debate, being uninvolved in the content dispute itself. I am merely reminding you of the policies in place at this encyclopedia. Of course, you are free to ignore this reminder, and keep BLUDGEONING that your personal opinion on what constitutes reliable sources trumps community consensus. LaughingManiac (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I won't lie, I'm edging towards some action being taken against Roilen, per everything above. Great Mercian (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. But I've seen you have run-ins with this editor so to be persuasive, you'd have to present a diff or two of conduct that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which I haven't seen yet. I see some worrisome commentary on their judging the reliability of sources but without evidence of improper actions, it's just talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CNN seems to be getting into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and there doesn't have to be individual diffs of policy violations for there to be policy violations in totality, thats just a false standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So engaging in discussion on a noticeboard qualifies as "editing"? And engaging in discussion about the reliability of sources on a noticeboard specifically devoted to discussing the reliability of sources is "partisan, biased, skewed, and [not maintaining] an editorially neutral point of view"? Rob Roilen (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I find the way you went about opening and prosecuting that discussion on CNN "partisan, biased, skewed, and [not maintaining] an editorially neutral point of view" and yes that would generally qualify as editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't participated in the discussion, which isn't over yet. Perhaps you would like to join?

Hopefully I'm not the only one here who sees the distinction between "editing" and "discussing on talk pages and noticeboards" as it applies to Wikipedia conduct policy. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus, not sure what I would add. If you want to argue that not being disruptive in main is a get-out-of-jail-free card for being disruptive in talk and wikispace I don't think thats going to work (even if there is actually no disruption in main, which I kind of doubt given the general quality of the contributions I've seen so far) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, discredit my contributions to the encyclopedia based on how you personally perceive my tone on discussion pages, even though you have not participated in the discussions. How illuminating.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Rob Roilen (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In general I find your tone civil, thats not a major issue I have with your editing. You don't need to jump in a dumpster fire to identify it as a dumpster fire, point to the man who set it, and say "That man appears to be setting dumpster fires" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also note that only 14% of your edits are in mainspace[56], so its not like an issue is being made out of namespaces in which your hardly edit... It would appear that an issue is being made about your core editing areas. Is there a previous account which I should also be referencing which I'm missing? In mainspace this account has simply not made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rob Roilen: If it's not too much trouble, can you name a source that does meet your standards? Great Mercian (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS?[57] soibangla (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong since I'm rarely there but my impression is a reasonable percentage of WP:A/R/E threads primarily or completely deal with talk page activity. Definitely CTOP does not require article editors for sanction, and a very common action is a topic ban or some sort which would of course forbid editing anywhere on Wikipedia covered by that topic. BTW I'm not sure if my point above was understood properly by Rob Roilen. My point is that you're still having trouble understanding and accepting core Wikipedia policies. Perhaps there is still hope for you to learn, but it's quite likely if there is hope, this would be by you staying away from areas i.e. recent American politics, where a lot of people apparently including you have trouble separating their strong personal feelings or whatever from their editing; and therefore are much more likely to make mistakes. There is a reason it's CTOP area after all. And since it is, it's far easier for an admin to decide that your editing is indeed enough of a problem that you need to stay away from it. There would still be millions of articles and their talk pages where you could learn the basics of editing here, but hopefully with greater detachment and less concern on your part about correcting a great wrong and therefore IMO much more chance you will learn. Nil Einne (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I've blocked them for 24 hours as an AE action for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in the WP:CT/AP topic area. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Aguahrz and User:Ajohn77

Will somebody please have a look at the accounts Aguahrz (u t c m l b p d) (oldest) and Ajohn77 (u t c m l b p d)? Socking or meat, Ajohn77 has repeatedly tried to move the page User:Aguahrz, a hoax about "UTEA officially United Territories of East Africa is a country located in Eastern Africa" (permalink) to draft space. They have remained unresponsive on their talk page. Sam Sailor 17:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I also have observed this behavior but avoided touching it with a ten foot stick (other than warning) i saw really nothing but socking and attempts at exporting an unfinished mos violation riddled article and i think the person behind said account doesn’t really know how to use Wikipedia I don’t see much harm as of today i say just let them do it till something block worthy is done •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You could consider reporting them at SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Elijah Pepe's article creation

I have never reported a user to ANI before to so bear with me if I do anything silly or this is the wrong venue.

User:ElijahPepe is a proflific article creator who's quick creation of current event articles have been problematic. His userpage is littered with deletion notices and editors making similar arguments over their creation of articles. Just in the last few months, 2024 Houston helicopter crash was deleted through a PROD, 2024 Israel–Hezbollah war was speedy deleted (with an additional comment from User:sawyer777 about Elijah's creation of current event articles after this was deleted), 2024 Zamfara State boat accident (a two line article) was moved to draftspace, 2024 stock market decline was deleted at AFD (see these comments from User: Liz and User:Soni on Elijah's creation of current event articles after this was deleted [58] and [59]) and Response to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (a one line article) was moved to draftspace.

Elijah certainly has created articles that are notable, and I would be wrong to not mention that, but too many times they have been warned about their article creation, or their articles have been deleted, with no change in behavior. I think some sort of sanction might be useful in this case to prevent this from continuing to occur. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I recall a recent noticeboard thread on this same topic with this same user: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#User_needs_autopatrolled_revoked, which was closed with their autopatrol being revoked on account of doing this too much. jp×g🗯️ 01:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've also noticed this as well. It almost feels like he's creating them just to claim "First!" Here he made an article about retaliatory strikes against Iran that didn't even happen until nine days later. Procyon117 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If Elijah was actually doing due diligence on articles (Confirm there isn't another article, check notability, actually add sufficient sourcing and content), we wouldn't be here. He does not, and nearly all of his articles are one sentence each, way less than anyone would expect. When repeated consistently, this shows a problem.

Note that I have past strong opinions on Elijah and saw this primarily thanks to the ping. I respect his mainspace contributions (as someone who has not contributed much there myself recently), but they are not supposed to be a substitute for due diligence. Soni (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

the issue is also his lack of communication; he rarely uses edit summaries even for huge sweeping changes, and doesn't meaningfully respond to feedback from other editors. see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#User:ElijahPepe continually makes persistent disruptive edits to New York Times against consensus & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#ElijahPepe New York Times issues, and this interaction on his talk page User talk:ElijahPepe#Tesla Network. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have nominated Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations for deletion. It was also created by this user. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what ElijahPepe has to say about this. Levivich (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To explain: I have never claimed that there is anything special about creating articles. I create them because I find them necessary, either as notable entries or for another reason. Since the article about the helicopter crash in Houston, I have tried to reduce articles on one-off events; this morning, a roof collapse in Serbia killed eight people, likely more since I checked, yet I don't intend on creating an article for it. The articles Esolo cites are not good examples of the claim he is trying to make. I agree with the deletion of 2024 Houston helicopter crash, 2024 Israel–Hezbollah war was a specific case in which consensus changed and that article no longer needed to exist, Response to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was a duplicate that was technically created before the current article, 2024 Venezuelan political crisis. 2024 stock market decline was a mistake that will never occur again, though I believe that the consensus was a misunderstanding of what I intended to cover. 2024 Zamfara State boat accident was an aforementioned one-off event. As for Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, I created the redirect, but the final article was not mine; editors determined a split was necessary and performed one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

these are some of the current or future event articles Elijah has created (and did not start as redirects) just from the last month and a half or so:

• 2024 Tel Aviv truck attack
• 2024 McDonald's E. coli outbreak
• Tesla Network (future)
• Tesla Cybercab (future)
• Assassination of Hashem Safieddine
• Proposed acquisition of Dish Network by DirecTV (future)
• September 2024 Birmingham shooting
• 2025–2026 U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq (perhaps the most ridiculous example of a future event article)

nearly all of them were created as single-sentence, single-source stubs with no indication of notability. there are more to be found at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/ElijahPepe/all#0
i and others have suggested Elijah simply make these current/future events articles in draftspace, as is fairly common, mostly to no avail. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If using the draftspace, which I did at 2024 McDonald's E. coli outbreak, is all you're asking for, then I can oblige by that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's still an article about a one-off thing of little significance, made up of WP:PROSELINE collecting a few news stories and other primary sources that don't carry any meaningful analysis. This whole topic should be one or two sentences in History of McDonald's, but it's been source bombed to make it look notable when it's not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Scbritton's personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Scbritton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making personal attacks on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism for several minutes now, and then proceeded to (attempt) to blank it, luckily it was caught in an edit conflict. They are clearly NOTHERE. Also see the article talk page, where I opened the AfD for them (due to an EC restriction on the page), and they proceeded to go on a tangent about bias that appears to be targeted at me, even though they said it wasn't. SMG _chat 20:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Diffs: the original personal attack, doubling down, tripling down. Also the article talk page. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed the “offending” content on reflection and decided that my other statements stood on their own merits. I was not attempting to “blank it”, but to return the discussion to the deletion of the article, rather than what was believed to be (and I strongly dispute the accusation) a personal attack.

if removing the material was not the appropriate way to deal with it, please direct me to the “correct” approach Steven Britton (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no "correct" way, it shouldn't have been said in the first place. I can say some extremely deplorable things, and taking it back/deleting it won't make it any better. SMG _chat 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I also dispute the “nohere” accusation. Steven Britton (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a note on my talk page about altering/deleting the comments of others, as it can be interpreted as disruptive editing, yet that is precisely what you have done yourself on that same page by changing the remark to “personal attack removed, and you are STILL complaining about it over on the deletion discussion page as well. Steven Britton (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That note links to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing others' comments, which lists Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks as an example of appropriate edits. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You may not agree with my opinion, and that’s perfectly fine.

However you do not have a monopoly on what gets to be determined as a personal attack. I do not have a monopoly on it either, for that matter.

I responded as I initially did because I was trying to get across to you why I said what I said, and why it was not intended as a personal attack. I maintain that position. I also still appreciate you adding the proposed for deletion tag to the page.

Now can we please put this behind us and move on? Steven Britton (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As the person who was the subject of the alleged personal attacks, I feel like I have an obligation to weigh in. I'm going to WP:AGF: I don't think that Scbritton was trying to attack me necessarily, I think the comments were just in poor taste. The claim was that me being queer could lead to the "perception" of bias by people unfamiliar with me or my views. This is correct, even if it's completely irrelevant because that bias doesn't actually exist. I think the comments made by Scbritton were just an attempt to point out a perceived potential issue with the article in the deletion discussion, even if they were wrong and misguided. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ll also note this, directed at me: ” Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here.” I’m on mobile, so I can’t fetch the revision, but it’s on the AfD. SMG _chat 22:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You mean this? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've just spent a little time digging around here, and what I've found is that Steven seems to spend the majority of his time on WP arguing that we shouldn't call people or groups "far-right" no matter how obviously they are exactly that, and that he was blocked before for edit warring at the Proud Boys article for pretty much this exact reason, and that block was extended to an indef with talk page revoked for their behavior during the block, and was only unblocked after a discussion here [60]. I'm getting the impression that this user is here for WP:RGW reasons. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think an inexperienced user may be forgiven for not immediately understanding the Wikipedian practice that, in an argument, someone (not a person who's in charge of that discussion in particular, just a random person) can arbitrarily decide that your comment breaks WP:TPG or WP:NPA and remove it, but also you aren't allowed to remove the subsequent things, e.g. a bunch of people calling it insensitive and offensive et cetera. Generally I prefer to use {{hat}} unless the thing is so obviously obscene as to be dishonorable to leave up in any form (e.g. crude sexual insults or curse words) jp×g🗯️ 00:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should WP:AGF for the once-off blanking. Trying to keep a discussion on-topic is a good motivation. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for not reading the relevant guideline and for blanking more text than necessary. My intention was to suppress uncivil comments, but I overdid it. Xacaranda (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Scbritton, I do not think that it is quite yet time to move on. What you did is pick up the fact that an editor prefers to be referred to my singular they pronouns, and then you inferred that the editor therefore seems to have an ideology incompatible with editing neutrally about Donald Trump. That is logically flawed, and use of the singular they goes back to the 14th century and is an entirely legitimate way to conceal aspects of one's identity, and the right to anonymity is an important value among Wikipedians. I recommend that you read A brief history of 'singular they' published by the Oxford English Dictionary .

Think about it: which ideologies render a person unable to edit neutrally? Both monarchists and Marxists can edit neutrally. Both Sourthern Baptists and atheists can edit neutrally. Both American patriots and Italian patriots can edit neutrally. Both Baby Boomers and Gen Z editors can edit neutrally. Our policy No personal attacks rules out derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor. The policy says using political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions The policy advises us As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. The policy also says Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. So, I would like to warn you to follow that policy closely and refrain from personalizing content disagreements that way. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this incident brings to light the fact that this user spends most of their efforts here asking us to not call things what they are. The Proud Boys are not far-right,Tommy Robinson in not far-right, Milo Yiannopoulos is not alt-right, People's Party of Canada is not far-right, calling the result of the 2024 US presidential election "legitimate" is a problem. And of course, we can't even have an article about the well-known fact that Donald Trump has increasiongly been referred to as a fascist. He frames all of this as being about neutrality, but he's only interested in that when it applies to people or organizations that are in fact far-right. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indeffed per NOTHERE/RGW. A quick review of their edits makes it pretty plain that they're here to right the great wrong of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia: a far-left bias of its editor base, selective, yet restrictive material sourcing to bolster that particular point of view, and locking articles and ganging up on editors to work around the rules of edit-warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Good block. jp×g🗯️ 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2601:601:8780:6e70::/64, disruptive editing

Note: the following is posted on behalf of 213.87.90.88 because it was disallowed by an edit filter but seemed like a good faith request. I have no opinion on the merits. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• 2601:601:8780:6e70::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Very persistent unregistered vandal whose edits usually contain dubious or fake information, always unsourced: [61] [62] [63]. And it goes on for many years: similar edits from the "neighboring" /64-ranges can be traced back to the mid-2015. The vandal is also active in Ukrainian Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia (already been blocked in Russian Wikipedia many times; as you can see, a recent one-year block wasn't enough there). I think it would be good to impose a global block (I suggest a 2-3-year term or even more), but I'm unable to properly file a global block request due to a semi-protection on the Steward requests page on Meta. Could you please block this range locally or make a global block request? 213.87.90.88 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Erm, @Ohnoitsjamie already blocked this IP range on the 26th (presumably when he saw the log or the report).

About the global block thing, IPs can request global (b)locks in the talk page of Steward requests (there's an edit request button in the edit notice).

I can't judge the global edits of the range, though they are a bit stale - I don't think there's anything more for admins to do here. – 2804:F1...9E:DCD8 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Guess I should've checked that before posting. I'd agree. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Could we get a quick block of IP 186.57.6.100, repeatedly vandalizing the article on Daniel Chapo, which is currently featured on the main page? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I blocked them but don't see why this wasn't just reported at AIV as bog-standard vandalism.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not into counter-vandalism so I wasn't sure the exact place to make the report. I'll remember to go to AIV next time. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

AIV has a backlog right now, I think. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Only three editor-generated reports that haven't been actioned, the rest have been reviewed. I'll take a look at the couple outstanding.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Miyanky445

I am not 100% sure if this belongs here or at AIV, but: I was at RCP when I reverted an edit by User:Miyanky445 which was unsourced and seemed POV. I left a notice and then, when checking the user's contribution history, I noticed that it was made exclusively of reverted edits of the same kind and seems to be realted to an ethnic group. I left a custom messege on user's talk page to which has not been responded to but then noticed that the user was reverting my reverts. Rather than start an edit war I'm brining it here but user appears to be either POV or wp:NOTHERE. --Lenny Marks (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that I reported the WP:3RR violation at the edit warring noticeboard.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 72 hrs for disruptive editing. I came very close to indeffing them based on their history. If this resumes, I think that would be the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Turkiishh

Turkiishh (talk · contribs) Persistent POV pushing and fringe theories edits. [64] See edit history, what else can I say. Also vast majority of his edits are reverts. Edit history Turkic peoples for example. Beshogur (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also you can't stop me from adding this on see also and help me instead of complaining. Beshogur (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 48 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Immediate block of an IP required

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I won't dignify the posts with further comment. See this, this, and this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support block Andre🚐 02:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I filed an AIV report a couple minutes ago. Hope they get blocked asap before any more attacks. Netherzone (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Dragon5556

There is a user on Wikipedia by the name of Dragon5556 who went on my personal page and vandalised it (Swearing and removing my personal content). They have also been vandalising Wikipedia by editing Rugby League pages with information which is not true. Is there anything that can be done about this?. Sully198787 (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I notified Dragon5556 (talk · contribs) about this discussion. They will need to provide a rather convincing explanation for recent edits to avoid being indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This looks like a straightforward "I'm angry at you 'cause you reverted my edits" case. I think a simple explanation of why we shouldn't add speculation (i.e. predicting the future) to pages would be useful. Also, Sully isn't reverting you because they think you're "not good enough", they were protecting the page from info and content which could potentially be incorrect or misleading to readers. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked. Johnuniq's comment above was appropriate at the time, but now it's starting to look like Dragon5556 may have come down with ANI flu immediately after their edits to Sully198787's userpage. Surely Sully shouldn't have to wait for them to recover, or indeed have to open another report once this one has slid off into the archives. Therefore, I have blocked Dragon5556 for two weeks for harassment and personal attacks. If that block cures them, they can appeal the block in the usual way, or indeed, if this thread is still live, write comments and ask to have them moved here. Bishonen | tålk 19:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC).

Disruptive userboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Burned Toast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Burned Toast has some particularly disruptive userboxes - ones that say This is user is an Antisemite. and This is user is aristocratic and looks down to the resentful masses. - on their user page, among others, that flagrantly violate WP:UBCR #2 as well as WP:HID, and may warrant attention from the community. I'm surprised that these haven't been detected or reported at ANI before. I'd normally discuss issues with userboxes with the editor on their talk page, but in this case I find the UBX disruptive enough to escalate directly to ANI. JavaHurricane 12:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Only partially related, but when @Catfurball: attempted to remove a non-userpage category from their page, they were reverted with the edit summary "don't touch my shit". Diff is here. SMG _chat 13:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I know WP:NONAZIS is an essay not policy. But those userboxes are straight up disruptive. So I'm going to say this: User:Burned Toast, remove the userboxes or I'm blocking you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed them and told the user not to restore them (sorry Rick, I only noticed your comment had been added when I came to post back here). Up to them now, but if they reappear it will be the last time. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for doing that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, someone explicitly calling themselves antisemite and spewing the "109 countries" bullshit should get an indef, not a warning. Especially given the theme of some of their edits, which I can't see as being in good faith given their userboxes. Their edit summaries on other themes can also be pointlessly disruptive (diff). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

(EC) When they also make comments like this on their edit summaries, on top of those userboxes, are they really here or an editor that we have value in? Account created in 2010, made 172 edits, mostly to sandbox/userpage and less than 100 mainspace edits. Some of those mainspace edits include gems like disrupting an article to make a political statement completely unconnected to it, and the good old tagging people as Jewish (they've done this a couple of times on various articles). So several cases over years of racism, antisemitism and disruption with not much value being brought to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indeffed. An anti-Semite who thinks WW2 was a mistake, commits vandalism, and generally makes a nuisance of themselves is NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Userpages do not belong in Category:Userboxes and to make hateful comments on the French and the Jews deserves to be Wikipedia:Banned. For there are many French and Jewish editors on Wikipedia. Catfurball (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed the other nonsense. Totally agree with the indef. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, fully support the block after seeing this. Good riddance. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abishe's problematic article creations

User:Abishe is a prolific article creator (some 2,000 articles, some 100 deleted ones) who has been autopatrolled since 2018. I noticed them in August 2024, when I posted on their talk page about the convoluted language in their articles (I had sent a few to draftspace as well), and about Close paraphrasing and copyvio issues.

The problems remain the same though, a few days ago I listed Taifa-1 at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 October 28, and when I look at something like Freedom Way from 29 October, you get things like "It was reported that Blessing Uzzi had befriended Afolabi Olalekan, and both of them knew each other for quite a while. They eventually became very closely attached to each other, making a formidable bond, and it all happened within a duration of at least three to four years," to say that they have been friends for 4 years.

Word salad: "Variety gave a critical review insisting that the screenplay of Blessing Uzzi was reminiscing of the storytelling pattern of prominent Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi, recalling the down memory lane memories of the latter's masterpiece films as they often touch upon the elevation of the storyline which was often decided on a particular incident being unfolded in a vital point as the catalyst that would determine the proceedings and trigger the flow of the film right through to the end of the climax, as the sequence of events are often portrayed as a result of that incident."

When looking at some recent creations while compiling this report, I came across Bayilvan Ranganathan, which seems to have very serious BLP issues. The section "He also endured in controversies as reports surfaced about him working as a broker by forcefully pulling young female actresses to act in blue films and in films with a huge component dedicated to adultery content. He was reportedly using his political influence to make and milk cash cows by targeting women actresses who were deemed as vulnerable due to various reasons such as desperate situation in terms of proving a point to establish themselves and to survive in the film industry" is sourced to this and this, but if Google translate is to be trusted then neither of them even remotely supports these allegations (I haven't removed them for now, but if confirmed then the section needs to go of course).

Can at the very least the autopatrolled right of Abishe be removed so we get more scrutiny of their articles? Fram (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I understand the constructive criticism on my work and I admit that I use lot of references by taking inspiration from existing websites. I admit my loopholes where my wordplay is put under a scanner. I really believe the way I write the articles, it is also as a result of my habit pertaining to the over consumption of reading articles in newspapers and internet where certain authors use catchy words and more technical English terms and jargons. I have exposed myself to read a plethora of articles written by various authors and I have also adapted the same language usage. For example, I can recall a Cricinfo article written by Sashank Kishore about an upcoming South African cricketer Nandre Burger which depicted his cricket trajectory in a phrase as serendipitous and unexpected path to cricket. I incorporated the word serendipitous actually to elaborate how the career trajectory of Sri Lankan radio announcer and television personality B. H. Abdul Hameed changed in a serendipitous manner with the paragraph as follows.

Hameed made his entry as a child artist, albeit in a serendipitous manner by replacing child artist Marikkar S. Ramdas who was supposed to take part in the Siruvar Malar program, but the latter was absent due to sickness on an eventful day.

I actually made lot of efforts and research before writing a lengthy content article for B. H. Abdul Hameed because the subject matter in consideration was deleted on previous occasions citing notability issues. Hence, such concerns also prompted me to elevate my wordplay. I do agree with the BLP concerns raised about the paragraphs that I included in Bayilvan Ranganathan and I will guarantee to ensure a neutral point of view by removing certain sentences which sound like scathing attack. I admit of using very detailed comprehensive analysis when trying to explain a situation in Wikipedia articles like the one mentioned by @Fram: in Freedom Way. The use of complex wordings by me in the recent articles actually speak volume about my passion for reading newspapers, articles and it highlights about my thought process on how to create articles to elevate the status of them to B or C classes. I always push myself to grab more general knowledge by actively contributing to Wikipedia by focusing on several topics ranging from sports, cinema, education, technology, science, entertainment, etc.

Variety gave a critical review insisting that the screenplay of Blessing Uzzi was reminiscing of the storytelling pattern of prominent Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi, recalling the down memory lane memories of the latter's masterpiece films as they often touch upon the elevation of the storyline which was often decided on a particular incident being unfolded in a vital point as the catalyst that would determine the proceedings and trigger the flow of the film right through to the end of the climax, as the sequence of events are often portrayed as a result of that incident. 

I write paragraphs like the ones mentioned above by cutting and chopping wordings after reading primary sources like Variety. Unfortunately I just did not really find out a way to write a section of my own for the Kenyan operational satellite Taifa-1, because the citation that I added in the article had advanced phrases and wordings which I felt I may not be able to change the wordings and I added some adjectives to exaggerate the content for my understanding.

Other thing I want to point out that I was keen on moving 2024 Asian Netball Championships in the ITN in main page. So I tried to expand the article to at least C class but I found little help in terms of obtaining high quality sources, mainly due to the fact that the 2024 Asian Netball Championships did not receive wider coverage and probably Indian sources ignored it. To add insult to injury, there were only a handful of news about Indian officials rejecting Pakistan visas to prevent Pakistan netball team from touring India for the competition. It was evident how Indian media chose to ignore such sporting events despite it being held in India. Hence, fellow Wikipedia editors insisted not to proceed with the proposal to add 2024 Asian Netball Championships to ITN section, citing lack of coverage as prime reason and also my article still remained relatively short. I do agree my writing was not upto the standards mainly due to lack of quality references. This was similar to my ambitious efforts to push 2018 Blind Cricket World Cup in ITN, but only to be politely rejected by other Wikipedians due to lack of coverage and due to tournament final being played in empty stands despite archrivals India-Pakistan playing the final. Hence, I find hopeless and sometimes it makes me to go to the extent of expanding the article depth by describing certain incidents by including a lot of adjectives, wordings to give a reasonable outlook to give an article to have a feeling similar to a lucrative attire or ornament.

I understand that autopatrolled rights given to certain Wikipedia editors is similar to the context of a public limited company listed under a stock exchange so that public scrutiny is ensured. A public limited company can issue shares to general public as long as it is listed in the stock exchange and if the company is delisted, the company's ability to issue shares will be restricted. The autopatrolled rights given me the license to fire on all cylinders so I elevate the content in articles in different patterns, but I guarantee I intentionally do not spread misinformation by adding hoaxes. It's actually to do with my writing pattern that I often exaggerate and use many words to describe a situation. I apologise for my style of writing and I do not endorse my act to be justified. It's just my opinion on how I usually go about my business in creating articles. Abishe (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How that metaphor about limited companies is supposed to apply to autopatrolled rights is anyone's guess. There is no feasible way that not having the right can impede your productivity; that would only be the case if you are using it to avoid necessary scrutiny that would cause you to have to rework or refine the stuff - in which case it definitely should not have been published without such scrutiny. The right's only function is to make the job easier for reviewers, it is not a perk. As always in such cases, I support removal of autopatrolled on demonstration of any reasonable need for a second eye on an editor's output. That should not be a big deal, and the best reponse would IMHO be "Sure, no problem". Fighting for retaining the right always strikes me as indicating that an editor is holding it for the wrong reasons. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

All revisions prior to this one should be revdelled. Fram (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. For the purposes of review by non-admins: the removed and revdelled content said in the lead that the subject was accused of unethical and possibly illegal conduct. No source was presented, and no body content supported it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Skets33's disruptive edits on the Tikar people article

User:Skets33 has continued to make disruptive edits on the Tikar people article, despite several warnings. They have failed to include reliable sources. In the rare event that Skets33 does include a source, the source (such as this one) does not make any of the claims that Skets33 includes in their edits. I noticed that this is a common theme across their edits on the Fula people, Hausa people, Bamileke people, and Kanuri people pages.

A comment was left on Skets33's user talk page on July 31, 2024 to inform them of Wikipedia's rules. The comment was ignored.

Diffs of the user's reverts and disruptive edits:

July 14, 2024

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]

August 1, 2024

1. [69]

August 2, 2024

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

August 3, 2024

1. [74]

October 26, 2024

1. [75]

MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked at all the diffs you have provided. This looks to me very much like a content dispute and a slow motion edit war between the two of you over what the primary subject of the article should be. You should both be discussing this on the talk page, and engaging in dispute resolution if that doesn't go anywhere. Please also note that it is literally impossible for only one person to edit war, it takes a minimum of two, and everyone who engages in it is equally wrong regardless of the correctness of their editorial position. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Guruji 1234

Could an admin remove TPA? They continue spamming. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just FTR, they have done the same thing with at least three different accounts. --bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Mushy Yank and AfD discussions

I'd like to call the attention of the community to what I see as routinely bad judgement at AfD procedures by User:Mushy Yank. At a current procedure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shaikh, the problem is illustrated. In this case we have a BLP article largely written by the subject. At the AfD, we have a new contributor User:Gul Butt and Mushy Yank asserting keep, as in In the list mentioned in the Television section, 11 of his dramas are notable enough to have a separate Wiki Page. In many, he is in the lead role. Still not met NACTOR?(diff) and He does seem to meet WP:NACTOR fairly with multiple significant roles (including more than 10 lead roles [I would not call this "a few"]) in notable productions.(diff).

This wouldn't be a problem as a one-off, but nominator User:Saqib points out Mushy Yank does this all the time: You should have realized by now (and there are more examples like this such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR.(diff).

In my opinion, Mushy Yank needs some correction before further editing BLP discussion at AfD. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

One of your two diffs is the keep vote of another editor, not of Mushy Yank, so it doesn't seem relevant for this discussion. Mushy Yank provided sources in his keep vote, so I don't see any issue with the vote as such (even if the article would be deleted, being "wrong" at an AfD is not disruptive if, like here, it is supported by at least a plausible reasoning). The subject seems clearly notable, and is the kind of national "star" the tabloid press features again and again[76]. Considering that many (most) sources probably aren't in English (or in Latin script), I would need good evidence that his roles are not major roles before considering deletion. So what's the problem with that AfD? Not Mushy Yank, as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve cited only a few AFDs where both Mushy Yank and I participated, but there are many more where their keep argument is simply that an actor meets NACTOR just because they have some roles in TV series or films. And when they're challenged, they get irritated and accuse others of making ad hominem attacks and this is not an isolated incident. They mostly contribute to actor/TV/film-related AFDs, an area heavily infested by sock farms and UPEs and several SPAs tend to vote keep based on weak arguments. Their keep votes often shift the AFD outcomes from delete to non-consensus, which is problematic. I suggest Mushy Yank be warned against throwing around weak keep votes. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate their willingness to save articles, but their arguments are sometimes incomplete or not well-supported. For instance, in a recent AfD, they posted a ‘Keep’ vote, stating: Keep: as a very anticipated film, as existing coverage shows; or redirect to Hanu-Man#Future until consensus is to revert and expand, if other users think it’s better. Absolutely opposed to deletion. Does being a highly anticipated film alone make it notable? Additionally, without providing any sources, the film is currently receiving coverage only because of its first look. Should we really keep the article without significant coverage (SIGCOV) sources and without meeting the NFILM criteria? GrabUp - Talk 15:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I've had some disappointing exchanges at AFD with them as well. Most recently was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Love in the World (Nine Inch Nails song) where, after being challenged on their WP:VAGUEWAVE keep stance, revealed they were trying to argue that sources with only 2 short sentences were examples of "significant coverage". There was another one recently too, but the name of that one escapes me at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, there may well be issues with their AfDs in general, I just don't understand why it was brought here with the example of an AfD where they did provide sources to support their claim, and where it seems that the main issue is the other side, delete voters not looking for sources and at the same time being unnecessary confrontational and personalizing the debate. And when the OP then added a quote from a different keep voter to their case about Mushy Yank, it looked more like an attempt to silence an opponent at an AfD than as a real issue (that quote has since been struck). I still don't get why this AfD is a problem worth of an ANI visit. Fram (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In my example of this particular process, I said the problem was illustrated. I wouldn't normally bring someone to ANI for bad judgement. Then I provided another editor's quote which contained a number of ten wikilinks (example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) which proved my point (routinely bad judgement at AfD procedures. This is not MY cherry picked sample, but my quote of User:Saqib's on this thread (I linked the diffs). If you click on the diffs and do a quick count you'll see my reason for posting this report. You'll noticed I've bolded some of them. Those are bad faith comments aimed at another editor. This is repeated bad behavior. 4/10. Before I cherry pick diffs myself, did we look at AfD stats? In the last 500 procedures, 267 Keep !votes and 174 Redirect !votes. 2 deletes. Two out of 500. BusterD (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Do those numbers seem normal to anybody? BusterD (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they seem entirely normal. Nobody is required to post a certain percentage of "keep" votes or "delete" votes in order to participate at AfD. Personally, I only vote when I think something is worth keeping. The deletions usually take care of themselves. Toughpigs (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As a frequent closer of AFD discussions, I see more of the opposite, editors who have never voted to Keep an article. I'm thinking of one extremely regular AFD participant whom I've never seen argue to Keep an article but their opinion is valued and I can't imagine them being brought to ANI because of their overly rigorous interpretation of Wikipedia's policies on notability. We have inclusionists and deletionists but this differing philosophy isn't grounds for a trip to ANI. If a voting record is now the grounds for an ANI complaint, I can suggest dozens of similar voting patterns among our regulars who veer strongly towards one end of the Keep-Delete spectrum. And I'd also point out the high number of arguments to Redirect an article from Mushy Yank when they don't believe an article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I am one of those editors who would fall in that category (majority delete votes). I think why the keep votes being mentioned here seems strange as opposed to delete votes is because pages recommended for deletion seem to be deleted more than kept. That is why they are brought there in the first place as an editor has likely done their diligence and believes they should be deleted. Yes, there are exceptions but I am talking about what generally happens. Now, if we had an "articles for keep" discussion I think the votes would turn opposite of editor's patterns and an editor voting delete in the majority of those discussions would not seem normal. I realize that is a strange comparison, but I vote keep hundreds of times by viewing and not taking pages to AfD (as I feel they meet notability) before I actually recommend one for deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, I am not saying it's wrong for someone to vote keep in the majority of discussions. Just explaining why it may not seem normal for the keep votes, while those voting delete the majority of the time may seem normal. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD, they're certainly not normal numbers, but that in itself isn't an issue, since there's no way to avoid selection bias when looking at someone's AfD vote habits. I presume that Mushy Yank only ever joins a discussion when they think they can vote against deletion - nothing wrong with picking your battles. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD wrote: bad faith comments aimed at another editor. This is repeated bad behavior. Mushy wrote (just to pick one of your bolded selections at random): I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another. How is that bad faith? Certainly no less bad faith than what Saqib said (triggered a reply from Mushy in one of your examples): You often claim that the actor has significant roles, but you never provide evidence. At worst, these are quite mild, civil expressions of frustration between editors whose frequent disagreements at AfD have led them to make probably reasonable assumptions about the other's thought process. Per WP:AGF, good faith is about assuming our fellow editors are working to improve the encyclopedia. Frankly, suggesting that an AfD count with too few delete !votes is somehow abnormal or an expression of "bad behavior" itself seems like a failure to assume that Mushy's intent is to improve the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Dclemens1971, I’ve tried to AGF since day one with Mushy Yank, but it’s tough when they called me a TWIT. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mushy_Yank&diff=next&oldid=1222349251 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have lots of other examples, a single-word edit summary that Mushy said was unintended and apologized for is not something helpful to hold onto as the source of conflict. Once again this thread is making mountains out of molehills. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Mushy Yank and I often engage in the same discussions and we rarely agree; Mushy appears to be more of an inclusionist than I am and to interpret the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE more loosely than most other AfD regulars. However, I don't think this approach is outside the realm of reasonable participation. I went through several recent examples and found several (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manorathangal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst Hannawald, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DemoCrisis) where Mushy offered sources with a "keep" !vote that convinced me. Mushy also regularly proposes (and accepts) redirection as an AtD (see here, here, here). There are others where I definitely disagree with Mushy's sources or interpretation (see here, here, here, here, here), but Mushy generally brings sources and offers analysis based on policy. There are of course some weakly argued "keep" !votes (example here) but I don't think it rises to the level of warranting administrative action or correction. As for the AfD that triggered this, I think Saqib's tone is sharp but I don't think either party is engaging in ad hominem attacks. Saqib did inaccurately summarize Mushy's "keep" rationale as simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series when Mushy's rationale did in fact explain how, to their mind, the criteria at WP:NACTOR applied, and one can forgive Mushy for being annoyed by this, but the tone remains quite civil. (Again, can't say I agree with Mushy's !vote, but I see no behavioral issue here -- certainly none that warrants the opening of an ANI thread.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My hands are not the cleanest in regards to exchanges with Mushy Yank, but here I am. I’ve had very unhelpful exchanges with user but nothing that can’t be tolerated (and I am sure vice versa). Despite the contention I don’t think I have perceived anything that would rise to misconduct or a personal attack. As such, I don’t believe ANI is the best place to address things.

With that in mind, since we are here, there are a few things about the deletion discussions that I think stand out which could be discussed, if not here then another venue. These things may be more of a policy or guideline misinterpretation than user conduct (and I am including myself in the statement about misunderstandings and/or conduct).

• The first is BusterD’s comments about the !votes based on having leading roles. I think there is confusion in the discussions amongh users as Mushy Yanks cites having leading roles as establishing notability despite NACTOR saying “may be considered notable.” Despite having leading roles, the person still needs to meet NBASIC. So, either Mushy Yank misunderstands the guideline, I misunderstand the guideline, or there needs to be clarification as to the guideline. If having leading roles means the person is inherently notable, I would change my !vote to keep in a lot of discussions.
• The second is AfD discussions on lists where Mushy Yank cites WP:LISTPURP or WP:SPLITLIST as keep rationale. Those are not notability guidelines. So again, it is either their misunderstand of NLIST or mine, but I believe NLIST is set out to establish that the list is notable as a group, not as navigation ("Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group"). Clarification on this would be useful as well.
• The last is just the bolding of the actual vote with regards to keep, delete, merge, or redirect. An example is this vote for redirect which if you read closer, appears to me to be a keep !vote. Redirects and merges are alternatives to deletion so believe the keep or delete vote should be stated first with the ATD to follow. The exception obviously is this redirect vote which is the only option presented in the vote.

To summarize the WALLOFTEXT, I think we are dealing with a misinterpretation on editors' part rather than any misconduct which would be actionable at ANI. I believe clarification on at least the first two points may save us time arguing in AfD discussions on the future --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Seems this was escalated rather quickly (no talk page notice?) and there's more than one party tangoing. I see difference in philosophy far more than unacceptable behaviour warranting sanction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User was notified. I checked the talk page and was going to notify (I thought the same as you at first) but see they removed the notification. I agree about the philosophy and behavior assessment which I tried to point out above. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CNMall41 - thanks for the correction, I should have searched the history. I do feel in a situation like this a personal comment via a talk page message (rather than templating) would have been more appropriate at this stage than bringing here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No biggie. In fact, I had half a message typed out on user's talk page before I thought of checking the history so its common. And I agree about the personal message. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been experiencing User:Mushy Yank in live AfD for some months and I've developed my sense of the user based on my real-time experiences. IMHO, some articles should be deleted (based purely on our multi-year experiments on Wikipedia). I was therefore particularly dismayed to find the user almost never !votes delete. Given the mixed feelings expressed by many in the thread, I've spent some hours going through the last 500 AfDs from this editor to learn more about their broader work in deletion discussions. I'm going to avoid providing too many diffs for reasons which will become obvious. I can say I found my reading enlightening. I read the processes newer to older and that gave me quite a different perspective than what I expected.

1) MY certainly continues to boldly assert keep and redirect at everything.

2) MY often has a sort of pleading tone (which I find personally annoying) insisting keep or redirect are the only options available. They often make broad arguments (like NACTOR) which are largely measured subjectively. However, they do it in a polite tone, which is easier to see in more recent processes.

3) MY almost always brings sources to the table (noticing which caused me to re-read everything I'd already read). Now often the sources are churnalism crap, and often these unreliable sources don't impress other editors or the closer. But the sourcing is impressive and something I hadn't noticed as much with my self-selected sample. MY spends time on sourcing (which stands out among "always keep" !voters).

4) While I notice MY make these occasional accusations of bad faith (and I found more than a few), these are much less common in recent months than previously. MY is responding to feedback.

5) As I read the processes newer to older, I could see how MY's work was getting increasingly less cordial, increasingly making less good faith arguments. Of course, that's not how these interactions were experienced. Based on my reading this morning, Mushy Yank's work is noticeably better now than it was when I first came across them many months ago. IMHO, my own personal interactions with MY interfered with my understanding of their broader work.

My analysis of their last 500 AfDs (going back to May 2024) is that they always !vote keep or redirect, and that often they make arguments which don't convince other editors or the closer. Their rigid pattern keep/redirect assertions sometimes unduly influence procedures' outcomes. But when I compare that pattern of what I called "gaming" to the patterns undertaken by previous bad actors or groups (looking at you Template:Rescue), that's pretty benign behavior.

So what does an editor do when he finds he was mistaken for filing an ANI thread, based on his previous experiences with another editor? Apology seems inadequate, but seems the least I can do. On the merits, looking at this thread myself, I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't do that harder reading first (took almost four hours). What should I have done? Gone directly to User:Mushy Yank and confronted them directly with my concerns. Why didn't I do so? I wrongly felt confident I had sufficient evidence. I made a snap judgment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shaikh, when Mushy Yank accused Saqib of ad hominem attack (again) merely for listing ten diffs as examples of MY's bad judgement in AfDs. I can see the moment in my edits where I demonstrated bad judgement. My next mistake was not stepping back from the keyboard. My third mistake was my own overconfidence I could present a case as it arose, and not instead doing the four hours of reading BEFORE filing the report, not after.

I expect to pay a price for my haste and lack of good faith when I saw bad behavior which matched up to my preconceptions of MY, based on previous interactions. User:Mushy Yank, I am sorry I didn't deal with you directly first. I hope you take this thread as awareness your actions are noticed by others, and I am glad that you are making improvements yourself. It is now time for ME to acknowledge my error and make my own improvements. As an administrator my actions and words are always under close consideration of the community. I have amends to perform. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting your initial conclusions here. Hopefully we can close this thread soon and all get back to work! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If I waxed TLDR above, I apologize. I felt I owed MY (and the community) a full description of my part in this. BusterD (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that this editor has been quick on the trigger finger with "keep" votes, and snappish towards criticism of the same. I don't think this is quite ripe for ANI, but I would be genuinely curious as to what they think is a good case for deletion. BD2412 T 15:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, I'm similarly curious. "If everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody." BusterD (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• As an active AfD closer/relister, I frequently see Mushy Yank's input. While I don't always agree with their !votes, I find them well reasoned and the editor receptive to feedback. They are no more or less problematic than any of our other frequent participants and I appreciate their research into AtDs for poorly attended SE Asian entertainment discussions particularly. Star Mississippi 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: there are some questions above you might like to answer, and I have a request as well; would you please consider changing your signature? It seems to me that the "My of my" comes across as dismissive and snarky, and doesn't help to create a positive impression. Fram (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you very much for your help and input, and to the various contributors who took time to write something nice above. I haven’t identified any question that would need my answering, though. What precisely did you have in mind?

I’ve, very despondently, changed my signature, although I had chosen it as it sounded sporty and enthusiastic to me, but the reference to Niehaus probably went unnoticed and lost but to me, :D.

Thanks again,

Best, Mushy Yank (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't get the reference. A question for you I saw right above here is "I would be genuinely curious as to what they think is a good case for deletion." Perhaps there are others, but this one seems germane (and neutral). Fram (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks, I didn’t perceive it as a question.

How can I answer such a general and strange question? A good case for Deletion? Why should my opinion on this differ from that of anyone else? Isn’t asking this assuming a lot? But, OK, I’ll answer, but that certainly will be disapppointingly plain: just something that does not meet the requirements established by the guidelines, I guess.

If the question is indeed a real one, well, one of the 2 users who apparently wish to know (and for the record, by the way, @BusterD, I don’t remember interacting with them before yesterday but that’s obviously true) mentions I voted Delete twice at AfD. I did not count but, again, certainly true: the concerned pages probably are an even better answer to that question.

I remember one was a BLP (I think living=yes :D) about a British model; no independent reliable coverage on her. So Delete. I was the only !voter, I think (with the nom). Was deleted.

The other was what I thought to be a hoax (an unrealized film called Whore) and took to AfD myself. It ended up Redirected. 2 !voters thought it deserved a Redirect and I eventually changed my suggestion accordingly (not sure). But I originally had identified it as ”a good case for deletion”, I suppose.

Another case comes to mind, now that I think of it. A film that I thought did not exist, and with two other users we took time to verify that was indeed the case. None of us took it to AfD but the debate, was, I suppose, the fruit of our findings (it was called El castillo de los monstruos and was a supposedly Argentine 1964 film). And I guess, Erik, Dr Blofeld (not pinging them but feel free to do it, if you think that’s best) and I had managed to determine it was a clear "good case for deletion". Yes, it took us a lot of time and efforts and it was slow, true. But happy ending:D: the page was deleted. You can check my !vote and realize that although not technically a D (too long to explain why), I was rather active in the process that led to its deletion.

Does that answer the question? To tell the truth, I honestly think this type of question would be more appropriate to a candidate for adminiship or something like that :D, but if you think it was helpful here, I didn’t mind and hope my reply is of the kind that was expected.

Thanks again! Mushy Yank (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: In my experience, I have found that Mr. Saqib lost his mind when he saw anyone opposing him. I have observed in some AFDs that I agreed with his rationale, where he never put a tag against my vote about single-purpose accounts or special contribs. Whenever I opposed him. He immediately put this tag. Further, I have noticed that he permanently pressurizing voter who votes against his will. This behavior shows that his statements about AFDs are incomplete. That is why, he has to argue in response to every comment. Let the other admins decide whether my vote resembles WP:AKA or not.  I have also noticed other nominators does not start comment wars against opposite votes on this extreme level. --Gul Butt (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Gul Butt, I have found that Mr. Saqib lost his mind when he saw anyone opposing him. Come on, things aren’t that bad yet! But you must be offended by this comment, right? I have observed in some AFDs that I agreed with his rationale, where he never put a tag against my vote about single-purpose accounts or special contribs. Whenever I opposed him. He immediately put this tag Great, so now I'm getting blamed for not tagging all your votes as SPA. Just so you know, I sometimes even try to counter those who vote the same as I do in AFDs, so your blame doesn't really hold up that I only go after people who vote differently. Anyway, since you're here, you definitely need to answer why you've been so interested in participating in AFDs since day one. Have you been editing previously under different accounts or what? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

AndriesvN and Christian theology articles

Since creating their account in 2021, AndriesvN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has spent the last 3 years rewriting Christian theology articles into argumentative essays reflecting their own point of view, rather than scholarly consensus on the topic, often citing a self published amateur website "revelationbyjesuschrist.com". I think this makes them an unambiguous net negative for the encylopedia. When confronted about this, they have referred to reverts of their edits as sabotage and saying that the only reason that people oppose their edits is because they are disastrous for [their] theology. [77]. They've previously been taken to ANI before (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#User:AndriesVN), but the result was inconclusive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we've gone straight banning with one diff, and some history. Secretlondon (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Andries has written The majority is always wrong; particularly so, the intellectual elite. [78]. Does that not come across as WP:NOTHERE to you? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, AndriesvN needs to stop citing their own blog.[79] (It's currently a source in 15 articles.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I see I have only 24 hours to respond.

It claims above that I have been “rewriting Christian theology articles.”

In reality, I focus on the fourth-century Arian Controversy.

It says that I converted such articles “into argumentative essays.”

The modern study of the Arian Controversy began less than 200 years ago. At first, scholars relied excessively on ‘orthodox’ theologians only. But, particularly in the second half of the 20^th century, scholars realized that the traditional account of that Controversy is a complete travesty. Hanson, perhaps the foremost 20th-century scholar on the subject, wrote:

-    “This conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty. To see this it is only necessary to read that weighty and magisterial recent work upon the subject, La Crisi Ariana del Qarto Secolo by M. Simonetti, a Roman Catholic scholar whose integrity is as unexceptionable as his orthodoxy.” (Hanson lecture 1988)

-    “The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack [published at beginning of the 20th century], can today be completely ignored.” (R.P.C. Hanson, 1987, p. 95-96)

My sources are the books published over the past 50 years by leading scholars. (Simonetti, Hanson, Williams, Ayres, Anatolios) Therefore, in the Wikipedia articles, we have both the traditional account and the current view. Mentioning both views, which I do from time to time, may seem “argumentative essays.”

It says above that I am “reflecting their own point of view, rather than scholarly consensus on the topic.”

I claim to do the very opposite. For the last 3 years I have been studying the writings of the leading scholars of the past 50 years. I believe what I present is the scholarly view. But it is important to understand that the scholarly view changed much over the last century.

-    “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years (written in 2004) has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).

-    “There has been a quite remarkable amount of new work on Arianism in recent years. … What had seemed clear points of reference faded away alarmingly as my studies advanced.” (Williams, p ix)

But the Wikipedia pages do not reflect the consensus position of modern scholarship. The Wikipedia pages still mostly reflect 19th-century scholarship. I am not trying to correct the scholarship but to present scholarship.

It says above that I cite “self published amateur website "revelationbyjesuschrist.com".

I have copies of limited parts of the writings of leading scholars on my website, to which I sometimes refer. But if you look at my edits, you will see that the bulk of my references are quotes from scholars. I put detailed quotes in the footnotes. But I will stop referring to my website. I don’t need it.

It says I am “an unambiguous net negative for the encylopedia.”

The Arian Controversy resulted in the Trinity doctrine which is regarded as the foundational doctrine of the church.  This, therefore, is a highly contested subject. Traditionalists do not want to hear about the new view of the Arian Controversy because it threatens the foundation of the church. But I am an independent. I do not belong to any church or organization.

When confronted about this, they have referred to reverts of their edits as sabotage and saying that the only reason that people oppose their edits is because they are disastrous for [their] theology.

This sounds as it this is a regular occurrence, but it refers to one single incident yesterday. I put in a paragraph saying that the term homoousios disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and was re-introduced only 30 years later. I gave many and detailed quotes from the leading scholars. But another editor simply deleted that paragraph. I regard that as blatant sabotage. Currently, the article on homoousios is silent on the subject.

I think it is important to understand why I am so vehemently opposed. The reason is that the fourth century controversy resulted in the Trinity doctrine, which is the most fundamental and foundational doctrine of the mainstream church. The traditional account of the Controversy had been developed to bolster that doctrine. Rewriting the history of the Arian Controversy threatens that doctrine. The authors I quote are all leading Catholic scholars. They do not need a false account of the Arian Controversy to accept the Trinity doctrine. But tertiary level traditionalists do not have enough understanding to do the same and want to retain the traditional account.

“His sources themselves (outside his personal blog, which he regularly cites and copies from verbatim despite repeated policy violation notices on the matter) have merit”

I have to quote verbatim to show that these are not my ideas.

In summary, the fourth-century Arian Controversy resulted in the Trinity doctrine, the foundational doctrine of the Church. The modern study of the Arian Controversy began less than 200 years ago. At first, by focusing excessively on the writings of the ‘orthodox’ but partisan authors, scholars got it completely wrong. However, particularly in the second half of the 20^th century, much progress has been made, resulting in scholars describing that Controversy very differently. However, the Wikipedia pages on the Arian Controversy are edited primarily by people intending to defend the Church rather than to defend the views of modern scholars. I leave you with some quotes from leading catholic scholars of the past 50 years:

“This conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty. To see this it is only necessary to read that weighty and magisterial recent work upon the subject, La Crisi Ariana del Qarto Secolo by M. Simonetti, a Roman Catholic scholar whose integrity is as unexceptionable as his orthodoxy.” (Hanson lecture 1988)

“The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack [published at beginning of the 20th century], can today be completely ignored.” (R.P.C. Hanson, 1987, p. 95-96)

“Athanasius' works … are written from his point of view. When the controversy is seen from another point of view… a distinctly different picture develops.” (Lienhard, p. 416)

“The modern critical study of the subject really begins with Newman's justly celebrated essay of 1833, The Arians of the Fourth Century” (Rowan Williams, 2002, p2-3)

“Some of these problems and inconsistencies can be explained by the fact that older research depended heavily on Athanasius as its source. The 19th century lionized Athanasius and made his career appear even more glorious than it was.” (Lienhard)

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis” (Williams, p234).

“The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact. The supporters of this view wanted their readers to think that orthodoxy on the subject under discussion had always existed and that the period was simply a story of the defence of that orthodoxy against heresy and error.” (Hanson, 1987, p. xviii-xix)

“There has been a quite remarkable amount of new work on Arianism in recent years. … What had seemed clear points of reference faded away alarmingly as my studies advanced.” (Williams, p ix)

“'Arianism' as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy, more exactly, a fantasy based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius. (Williams, p82)

“A great deal of recent work … helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition.” (Williams, p. 21)

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (Lewis Ayres, 2004, p. 2)

“A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years (written in 2004) has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).

“In his wonderful dramatic prose Pavel Florensky epitomizes a centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: in one decision and with one pronouncement the Church identified a term that secured its Trinitarian and Christological beliefs against heresy and established a foundation for subsequent Christian thought. The narrative offered in Chapters 1–10 demonstrates why such older accounts are deeply mistaken.” (Ayres, p11)

As an example, I quickly read the Wikipedia page on homoousios.

I made a quick assessment of the article on homoousios. That is the term used in the Nicene Creed to say that the Son is of the same substance as the Father.

Wikipedia (W) says it “was later also applied to the Holy Spirit.” But Hanson wrote that the Creed “does not apply the word homoousion to him (the Holy Spirit).” (RH, 818)

Concerning pre-Nicene usage of the term, the article only mentions the Gnostics, who cannot be regarded as Christians. I previously put in a long discussion of pre-Nicene usage which has now been deleted which quotes scholars saying (a few extracts):

·       Egyptian paganism used the term to say the Logos and Father “share the same perfection of the divine nature.” (Beatrice)

·       The term “is not to be found in the Holy Scripture” (P.F. Beatrice). “Nobody could pretend that it was Scriptural” (Hanson, p. 167).

·       Tertullian, “writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding to (the Greek term) homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 190)

·       “Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192)

·       “It is almost certainly right to conclude that Origen could not have spoken of the Son as homoousios with the Father.” (Williams, p. 132)

·       in the 260s, “some local Sabellians” () described the Son as homoousios with the Father (Ayres, p. 94).

·       “It seems … likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians, had denied the term.” (Ayres, p. 94)

The following are examples of other concepts that are not found in the article:

·       “Homoousios before it was placed in N must have been regarded as a term which carried with it heretical, or at least unsound, overtones to theologians in the Eastern church.” (Hanson, p. 195)

·       “The word homousios had not had … a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch, and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches.” (Philip Schaff)

·       “To say that the Son was ‘of the substance’ of the Father, and that he was ‘consubstantial’ with him were certainly startling innovations. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before.” (Hanson, p. 166-7)

·       Constantine “pressed for its inclusion.” (Hanson, p. 211)

·       “The Origenists had considerable reservation about homoousios and the other phrases containing the term ousios (substance), but the emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved.” (Erickson) [Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p82-85]

·       “Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (Hanson, p. 850)

·       “It seems … that Constantine interceded on behalf of those unhappy with homoousios, insisting on the importance of understanding the term without material connotation.” (Ayres, p. 96)“For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (Hanson, p. 170)

·       “Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians (extreme anti-Arians) [the Sabellians] were in favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion.” (Hanson, p. 202)

·       “The choice of the term homoousios seems to have been motivated in large part because Arius was known to reject it.” (Ayres, p. 90)

·       “If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine (during the Arian Controversy), there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (Hanson, p. 849)

·       “He (Athanasius) began to use it [homoousios] first in the De Deeretis and thereafter regularly in his theological works, defending it fiercely against all criticism of it. If we place De Deeretis in 356 or 357 … .” (Hanson, p. 438)

Sorry for this untidy document. I did not realize I must comment within 24 hours and I hastily put something together.

Andries AndriesvN (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We're discussing WP:Policy, not whether or not mainstream scholars are wrong. This wall of quotes is completely irrelevant; please stop including them in talk pages. You do not need to copy verbatim; that is plagiarism and a copyright violation. If reliable, independent sources - not your blog - say something, you can appropriately paraphrase and cite it, with due weight.

TypistMonkey (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

do note that attribution of quoted, verbatim material is a perfectly fine thing, but the part with the slippery slope is when it is done excessively and without encyclopedic purpose or context. This is therefore the definition of the slippery slope, quoting crap tonnes of these outside sources, in a talk page, for no encyclopedic purpose. BarntToust 20:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a helpful response as no-one is going to plough through all of this. Simply - you need to communicate with people and better than this. You cannot quote your own website under any circumstances. Secretlondon (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is this:

During the 20th century, through detailed and independent research, scholars specializing in the Arian Controversy have concluded that the Traditional Account of that Controversy is history according to the winner and fundamentally flawed. The writings of such scholars over the past 50 years present us with a Revised Account.

However, the Church does not accept the Revised Account because it casts doubt on the legitimacy of its foundational teaching; the Trinity doctrine. The Church continues to defend the Traditional Account because it reflects the views of the ‘orthodox’ fathers and supports the Trinity doctrine.

The average editor of Wikipedia articles on the Arian Controversy is not a scholar specializing in the Arian Controversy or even a student of such scholars as myself. The average editor is a Christian intent on defending the Church. By removing any statement that may cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Trinity doctrine, these articles are kept at the level of the Traditional Account.

In other words, the Wikipedia approach of building consensus through talk pages cannot work for articles on the Arian Controversy. The majority of editors will always delete ‘negative’ statements. Given the situation, Wikipedia may consider one of two options. It may delete all such articles or it may assign an independent arbiter to ensure that all edits are based on the writings of recognized modern leaders in this area. AndriesvN (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, what you're trying to say is irrelevant to your demonstrated disinterest in following article policy in several ways that have been repeatedly complained about and noted directly to you-- most severely, by essentially converting several articles into extensions of your personal blog. Secondly, you've provably misrepresented your sources in the past (e.g. misrepresenting Athanasius as Sabellian in theology through deceptively quoted passages from an author who himself didn't dare to assert that he was)-- even ignoring your lack of attention to policy, your contributions aren't valuable in terms of their information. Thirdly, your narrative isn't true-- even before you, Bart Ehrman (an atheist) was used as a prominent source for Christian theology articles to the point that many of them are written on some level around his theory of a "proto-orthodox Christianity". Arsenic-03 (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.

A day or three ago, you deleted my paragraph that said that homoousios disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and only resurfaced in the mid-350s. You justified the deletion as follows:

“This segment is lifted from the contributor's personal blog (this complaint has already been made in the Talk page topic the Disputed notice links to). The citations also do not reference the specific book cited, and one links to the contributor's personal blog.”

Firstly, this sounds as if I invented the arguments in this paragraph. But I provided six verbatim quotes from recognized scholars, confirming this paragraph.

Secondly, you said I did not provide “reference the specific book cited.” I gave the name of the author and the page numbers. Why should I provide full details if the same authors are quoted repeatedly?

Thirdly, you say “one links to the contributor's personal blog.” That is true. But it links to a copy on my site of a lecture by the foremost 20^th-century Arian Controversy scholar; RPC Hanson. It is not one of my articles.

In my view, you deleted this very important paragraph based on minor technicalities. I claimed above that the average editor of Arian Controversy pages will always make sure that those pages revert to the Traditional Account by deleting anything that may question the validity of the Trinity doctrine.

Thans again for your comment. Such comments help me improve. regards AndriesvN (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You say: "You've provably misrepresented your sources in the past (e.g. misrepresenting Athanasius as Sabellian in theology through deceptively quoted passages from an author who himself didn't dare to assert that he was)."

You don't provide references. I am not sure where I "misrepresented" and "deceptively quoted." In the article on my site on Athanasius' theology, I say that his theology was similar to Sabellianism. Both taught that the Father and Son are 'one hypostasis' (a single Person). Hanson (p. 235) says that "the hallmark" of Sabellianism is that the Father and Son are one Person. If we use that as the definition of Sabellianism, then Athanasius was a Sabellian. But if you can provide more specific details, I can respond more precisely. AndriesvN (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, you copy-pasted from your own blog, verbatim. You just can't do that, and doing so also imported the distinctly argumentative tone from your blog (which is a problem in its own right). Secondly, authors can have more than one book penned by them-- a name and a page number is useless for reference.

You don't provide references My vote includes a link to me demonstrating all the ways you misrepresented Hanson representing Athanasius (including evidence that you've argued the same on the Christianity Stack Exchange only to be summarily refuted), and you're still choosing to misrepresent both by obscuring the history of the terminology you now discuss. I read the cited sections. I've read Athanasius. Now, you've cited p.235 of what's presumably Search for The Christian Doctrine of God to assert that Athanasius and Sabellius believed the same, when the authors are speaking of Marcellus and Eustatius there, and furthermore notes that the former accused Sabellius of incorrectly rejecting the Logos-doctrine. This is why I distrust the informational value of your contributions. Arsenic-03 (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we are not interested in truth, we are interested in verifiability. Even if the church (all of them?) are wrong on key points of Christianity we don't write that they are all wrong. Writing for Wikipedia is very different from writing for academia. We are writing to expand and to educate, not to prove our argument correct. You seem to be on a crusade and presume bad faith for people editing with mainstream view points. I'd strongly advise you to contribute in areas you don't care so strongly about. Secretlondon (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to your contributions here I think we would be right to block you from editing on Christian theology for the time being, as I don't think you are listening or understand what the problem is. Secretlondon (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban AndriesvN from Christian theology

Based on the above posts, I am proposing that AndriesvN be topic banned from Christian theology, broadly construed. I think this a basic minimum and I wouldn't oppose an indef block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral Some of their sources might have merit, but they have too much of an attitude of "Us right, everyone else wrong." tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support I've demonstrated in the past that whether or not his sources themselves (outside his personal blog, which he regularly cites and copies from verbatim despite repeated policy violation notices on the matter) have merit, he's liable to grossly misrepresent the arguments and base information therein. The reality that he may be providing valuable information (or at least, information not worthy of deletion) mingled together with his argumentation makes mass contribution reversion untenable and article renovation difficult, but I nevertheless opine his demonstrable willingness to distort sources ensures that his contributions are overall a net negative. Arsenic-03 (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest an indef seems they're mostly here to promote their personal blog website, which is not a reliable source. I notice the majority of their edits are sourced to it, which is just their own opinion and views and in no means a reliable third party source. They're not interested in editing anything else, just basically in proselytizing and explaining why their fringe worldview is right. They've had policies and guidelines explained to them many times, and they've clearly demonstrated they have zero intention of following them. I don't think they can be productive here. (Oh and blacklist their blog at the same time.)Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I'm surprised he got in a comment in the previous ANI egregious enough to be revdel'd, and is still here. No prejudice against an indef, myself. Ravenswing 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• non-admin comment There's a comment on the user in question's talk page that seems a bit concerning: You'll find it here. It reads, "Combined with the miracles that we are surrounded with, such as the miracle of sight, it allows me to look forward to my death.". Could be emo stuff, but really not the stuff you wanna see on Wikipedia. Is this just some Heaven's Gate cult-esque morbidity or whatever? Is this just emo? Is this an actual concern? BarntToust 21:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's just religion. Secretlondon (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  i don't think this is of any concern; it's not that much weirder than saying "i look forward to going to heaven" ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block as per Canterbury Tail. Barring that, support the topic ban, broadly construed. --Yamla (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, with an indef topic ban as second choice. Bishonen | tålk 21:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC).
• Support topic ban. I would AGF past a full NOTHERE, but they're really not getting the point of WP regarding sourcing. I can't see that revelationbyjesuschrist.com has any place here on WP, and certainly not when it's added by its author. If it's backed up by so much research, This article quotes from the world-class specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy., then why not quote those as RS instead?

If this gets worse or spread (and that would be no surprise), then INDEF is still a possibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that the editing is disruptive, and if unchecked then a block would be necessary. I have offered to help them get their head around what we do here - I don't know whether that will help, but if they are willing to engage then we might get somewhere. If they don't respond to my offer, I don't object to the apparent consensus for an indefinite block/TBAN. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban - I think a topic ban at least is a must given their conduct in this area. I could go either way on an indef; they don't seem to be particularly collaborative, obviously a major issue, but they also may be more amenable to the opinions of others in a topic that isn't so important to them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'd prefer that this discussion isn't closed until we have heard from User:AndriesvN. I am interested in hearing their response to this critique. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Policy says we have to wait at least 24 hours, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The user in question has already written a lengthy-as all hell would let out tangent of some supposedly cited backups of content on their talk page to Liz. The sources they give may be of merit? They have been given an ample notice to see what has transpired here. They have made a choice to not engage here, or maybe they do not care? Also, they have spoken with Girth Summit on their talk page, in which Girth reiterated the ANI discussion taking place, and gave some very helpful advice to them on their misgivings.

  They either know that this is going on and don't care, or or they are just blissfully unaware of the way Wiki works. Look, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU might be going on, but they are well-aware of the other stuff on their talk page. They may yet actually be doing research, or it could all just be WP:FRINGE cruft. Who knows? BarntToust 13:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well they responded in the section above with a massive wall of text, most of which is not about the actual topic of this complaint. I really don't think they get it or understand what Wikipedia is for. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I guess that this obliges me to read their user talk page response. Wish me luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to put together a proper reply. My habit is to sleep over things. AndriesvN (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum. They've not just used they're own blog as a reference but embedded links into the text of articles. The changes they've made are not backed up the the sources in the article and appear to have quite a lot of OR in them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think I got all the WP:EL vios. Haven't removed all the citation templates using the blog as a source because I have no interest in locating a better one. Folly Mox (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  As an aside, given this editor's propensity for providing verbatim quotations rather than summarising in their own words, I suspect the source material hosted on their blog – excepting, of course, their own OR posts – comprises faithful reproductions of the original sources. So not every citation to the blog is as bad as it seems, although clearly still inappropriate. Folly Mox (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Numerous citations of own blog, does not understand or intentionally ignores WP:OR. Lengthy argumentative passages on talk pages, and this is an ongoing issue. I would extend this to everything related to Christian theology and early church history - arguments about discussion of Councils and Creeds are also problematic. TypistMonkey (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I consider those to come under "broadly construed" Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• The editor is showing no interest at all in improving. Three points, really: a. they can't seem to make an argument without completely losing sight of the matter at hand, an ongoing problem, and continue trying to prove that they are right in all kinds of places--here, their talk page, edit summaries, without ever involving the fact that we are an encyclopedia and the crux is their behavior. b. Their walls of (irrelevant) text only exacerbate their disruption. c. Perhaps most damning, they continue they show an incredible amount of bad faith; they did so here, in a note on their talk page where their only response was to argue that they were right on the content, and again here, in one of the defenses of their rightness--look at the last paragraph for the conspiracy theory, "the Wikipedia pages on the Arian Controversy are edited not by the world's leading scholars but primarily by people intending to defend the Church". Enough already. I'm for an indef block/ban, and a topic ban at the very least. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have edited the article (meaning Arianism) in the past, and I'm not a Christian, so I don't seek to "defend the Church". I have even WP:CITED Bart Ehrman in the article, he is an atheist. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndriesvN&diff=prev&oldid=1254709248

• Support indef block with topic ban as a distant second. The 2000+ word response that they posted indicates an inability to speak plainly and collaborate with other editors. Toughpigs (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block, or topic ban if not enough consensus for a block. The user in question doesn't seem to understand or respect the purpose of Wikipedia, and has been around long enough (and confronted about it enough times) that they really have no excuse. Case in point: when confronted for turning articles into argumentative essays (see top of thread), user responds with a long argumentative essay in defense of their theology. Completely beside the point. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal of theology. Given the user's persistent unwillingness to change, I think a topic ban is a bare minimum, and an indef block more appropriate. HieronymusNatalis (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support, indef block, per nom. Raulois (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support t-ban on Christian theology as broadly construed as is possible. I think this editor could be formed into a successful contributor once exposed more thoroughly to Wikipedia's requirement to collaborate. A medium-length (two-three weeks) general block may also help them cool off. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBan appealable after one year and every year thereafter. Oppose block (for now). Clearly there is a problem here that requires some form of editing restriction. My usual preference is to go with the lowest level of sanction that will resolve the problem. In this case, I am not yet satisfied that AndriesvN is NOTHERE. That said, if there is not an improvement in their editing after the imposition of the TBan, then a block may become necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. They need to edit on different areas. Secretlondon (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

IZAK casting aspersions after moving against consensus

In May of this year, an undiscussed move of Jews in Madagascar was performed, changing the article’s title to History of the Jews in Madagascar. Similar undiscussed moves happened at Jews in Taiwan and Jews in Hong Kong. I initiated requested moves at all three, seeking to revert the moves. My requests were successful. Yesterday, User:IZAK made a request to User:Jfdwolff to once again move Jews in Madagascar to History of the Jews in Madagascar, which Jfdwolff did. I reverted the moves, per the guidance at WP:RMUM, and explained to IZAK that there had already been a discussion. I also explained my point of view as to why I believe the page shouldn’t be moved on IZAK’s Talk.

IZAK responded by initiating a request for a disputed technical move: For over two decades on WP all articles about Jews in countries and in other areas, whether from ten, or a hundred, or a thousand years ago, has been titled as "History of the Jews in ____", see over 150 examples of this in Category:Jewish history by country (as well as in Category: Jewish history by city etc etc.) The only times that an article is reduced to the topic of a type of Jew is when writing about sub-groups within Jews themselves, such as Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews, which has nothing to do with the countries they are in per se. These articles record the Jewish history of Jews, all kinds of Jews, in any country or region regardless of how long those Jews have existed or been recorded there or what types of Jews they are, whether "imported" or "home-grown" it makes no difference, they are part of the "History of the Jews in ____" series of articles on WP. See Talk:Jews in Madagascar#Requested move 31 May 2024where @Zanahary: made up a new set of "criteria" and moved the article/s without major WP:CONSENSUS from other editors, based on all sorts of unfounded and fanciful reasons such as "conciseness" and "Jews as foreigners" that undermined the original connection of these articles to the main scholarly subject of Jewish history. IZAK also responded at Jfdwolff’s Talk: These articles "History of the Jews in ____" have been around for over 20 years on WP without any problems until you arbitrarily decided to come along with the wrong reasons

I asked him on his Talk page to please be civil, not cast aspersions, and to keep in mind that he’d enacted a move against prior consensus, and all I’d done was follow WP:RMUM and apparently not shared his view. I also asked him to strike the aspersions at the move request, as they’re irrelevant aside from being uncivil. He responded both at his Talk and at the request, for some reason, casting more aspersions and baselessly accusing me of POV-pushing and manipulating consensus (by “taking advantage”) with the goal of imposing my "POV" across all of the Jewish history articles. I asked him again to strike the aspersions from his request, and he declined, also accusing me of WP:OWN attitudes]] and of keeping an unbending hold on the titles of these articles that got [IZAK] thinking whether [I] would stop with these 3 and that [I] maybe had plans for the whole series of hundreds of articles titled "History of the Jews in ____"

Aside from knowingly moving against consensus, this is a crazy level of conspiratorial aspersiveness for me to deal with, all for the crime of following move procedures while not sharing IZAK’s view.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Response by IZAK

I am very surprised that @Zanahary: has chosen this path of defending his moves. He has defied over twenty years of editing of WP:CONSENSUS of articles in Category:Jewish history by country, Category:Jewish history by city etc, that has always titled articles about the Jewish history of Jews in countries or cities etc as "History of the Jews in ____". User:Zanahary has taken hold of three articles Jews in Madagascar, Jews in Taiwan, Jews in Hong Kong and refuses to have them moved to the correct genre of titles in this case History of the Jews in Madagascar, History of the Jews in Taiwan, History of the Jews in Hong Kong. I tried to move one of them but Zanahary blocks me citing prior precedents. I must admit that at first I was not aware that there had been some discussion of those issues on the 3 articles' talk pages so at that point I asked User:Jfdwolff with help making the move with Jews of Madagascar to History of the Jews in Madagascar which Zanahary then quickly reverted citing the very limited "consensus" of one or two editors at the 3 articles in question that runs totally opposed to the over two decades long true WP:CONSENSUS of editors who have stuck with the names "History of the Jews in ___" and NOT naming articles "Jews in ___" only. Realizing that this was an issue I then proceeded to post a formal request to move all three articles at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests because by then I was aware that my request was being CONTESTED by Zanahary. Instead of Zanahary sticking to the arguments and reasons I have for the proposed moves of Jews in Madagascar to History of the Jews in Madagascar, Jews in Taiwan to History of the Jews in Taiwan, Jews in Hong Kong to History of the Jews in Hong Kong, Zanahary now takes issue with my admittedly strongly wordered arguments opposing his narrow WP:POV which, yes, is a WP:OWN attitude, even though he does not like that it is stated as such, and then runs to ANI instead of sticking to the arguments at the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests discussion. He refuses to see that his so-called "consensus" based on his moves at just 3 out of hundreds of such articles is hardly existent. It's basically himself versus twenty years of editing by hundreds of editors on WP who have assembled hundreds of articles titled "History of the Jews in ____" that in all probability, based on his changes at 3 articles, he will use as an "argument" to defy. As an example of WP:CONSENSUS see Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia#Requested move 5 June 2020. I have already expressed my apologies to Zanahary if he has taken offense to my vigorous explanations of my objections but I see no need to strike any of my forthright arguments that are in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD. IZAK (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• NOTE: The original discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests has been moved to Talk:Jews in Madagascar#Requested move 1 November 2024 where the previous discussion continues. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Oy vey, guys. You're both clearly well-meaning, passionate good faith contributors trying to improve the articles on Jewish history on Wikipedia. We could really use you both and for both of you to spend your energies on productive matters and not bickering. Can't you both figure out how to empathize with each other, apologize, find a way to meet in the middle and compromise and move on? IZAK, for starters, I think Zanahary is right that you're defending this a bit strongly. I know you feel protective over these articles, but Zanahary is not trying to delete them. He just wanted a more concise naming convention. Yes, one that is inconsistent with other articles. But we can discuss the relative merits without making it personal, right? Andre🚐 04:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• As a matter of procedure, a Requested Move was held, which means that attempting to move it again must also go through RM by default. The exceptions generally involve all parties agreeing, the situation changing, or the previous advocate's judgment being untrustworthy for some reason (e.g. revealed to be a sockpuppet). IZAK should not have asked Jfdwolff to move it skipping RM, and Jfdwolff should have reviewed WP:RMUM before moving the article and politely declined the request. Even if we grant the current situation isn't consistent (which isn't entirely clear - it's possible this article's topic is somewhat different from the other "History of..." articles), there are tons of cases where we have completely valid exceptions to article titling. If we accepted consistency alone as a sole reason for overturning discussions (even sparsely attended ones), then it'd be impossible to ever keep valid exceptions as exceptions.
• As a matter of user conduct, I don't think this is quite "a pox on both your houses." IZAK, can you tone down the rhetoric a few notches or so? You and Zanahary disagree on the proper title. That's perfectly normal and common and happens in every contested RM discussion ever. Even if we hypothetically grant that Zanahary is "def[ying] over twenty years of editing of WP:CONSENSUS ", that is okay. Wikipedia is a work in progress and is allowed to change. There's tons of questionable article division & titling decisions from 20 years ago that probably still need to be fixed. That's why the whole Requested Move process exists at all. Just argue it out at RM, and whichever side finds consensus, it's fine. The closer should already take into account consistency and use it as a point in "your" favor, but maybe others will agree that this article isn't of the same type and thus doesn't need to be consistent at all. SnowFire (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:ModernDaySlavery inflating edit count for extended confirmed

The user has been rapidly gaining edits, with the first 10 edits being useless edits to user page with barely any changes, and the last 100 rapidly triggering edit filters with meaningless additions to user page as well. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not true, please don't make assumptions I'm testing a software ModernDaySlavery (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What software? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

A Python script I'm working on ModernDaySlavery (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's very reasonable to make some assumptions, as we've seen this behavior before. Please understand you are not allowed to make edits in a bot-like fashion without prior approval. Remsense ‥ 论 04:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted ModernDaySlavery (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So, if there is a sharp change in the slope of your contribution graph by revision frequency or data volume or you suddenly start editing in a topic area covered by extended confirmed restrictions you won't mind your extended confirmed privileges being revoked, correct? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't plan on suddenly start editing in a topic area covered by extended confirmed restrictions any time soon, if that puts you in ease. ModernDaySlavery (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to be “that guy”, but this account could arguably be in the crosshairs for a username block as being in violation of our username policy, specifically: “ [usernames that are] are offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, or disruptive, or that advocate or encourage any such behavior (including criminal or illegal acts)”. Modern day slavery would be an illegal act, and since modern day slavery could be said to be a touchstone of hate groups you’d run up against another section of the policy: “ Usernames that deliberately offend, dehumanize, attack, demean, disparage, discriminate, or support or advocate any such behavior toward any race, religion, gender, sexual identity, sexual preference, political affiliation, or social group or status, or imply the intent to do so. Examples include: Usernames that contain discriminatory attacks, racial slurs, or pejorative terms Usernames that praise highly contentious people, groups (also known as "hate groups"), or events—future, past, or present—that currently allocate, have allocated, or plan to allocate efforts or resources toward afflicting direct discriminatory, social, physical, or emotional harm toward those who identify as part of any of these groups.” Food for thought. 2600:1011:B331:F483:716E:82E4:6ACC:266D (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have an issue with the name, nor see it as intentionally disruptive. If they are using a script (unauthorized bot), however, I see plenty of reason to block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, not only do I not have an issue with the name either, nor see it as intentionally disruptive, I think that's seriously overreaching and overreacting. How do you possibly figure that the mere mention of the word "slavery" either condones, supports or advocates it? Ravenswing 12:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked EC for clear gaming. You can re-request at WP:PERM once you've made an honest 500 edits, which looks to be about 100 edits off. Izno (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Baseless Allegation

Hey, I've started working on Wikipedia recently and I intend to do it due to my interest with respect to what's happening around the world. But recently an editor User:Saqib had an allegation on me that I'm getting paid for it which makes no sense at all, cause he doesn't even have any evidence. What should I do to counter the matter? Reshmaaaa (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

These notifications are pretty straight-forward and occur if there is speculation that an editor has a conflict-of-interest. I wouldn't take it personally and don't edit in any promotional way. By the way, thank you for notifying Saqib about this posting, most new editors aren't aware that this is a mandatory step. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, thank you for your kind words. I'll try to give my best here and make it a better place. It's just that tag meant vague to me so I was concerned. Now that you've given me clarity, I'll discard my concerns regarding it.Reshmaaaa (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reshmaaaa, that article has been targetted by a lot of sockpuppets in the past, so coming out so strongly in favour of it in an AfD discussion is the kind of thing that will raise some people's eyebrows. If you're not operating multiple accounts or editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest you don't have anything to worry about, but until you're a more established editor here, if you take interest in topics that have been spammed a lot you'll probably keep getting this kind of question occasionally. It's really annoying, but people will stop eventually. -- asilvering (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I didn't see it from this perspective. That's my bad. Reshmaaaa (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! As a neutral third party, I would like to provide context I've been able to gather from contributions and past discussions, and also to offer my input on the matter.

Aaand we're already starting off with an AfD discussion for an article that's already been deleted yesterday, which makes it that much harder to know what actually happened. The article in question is Woh Aik Pal, which appears to be a Pakistani drama show. It has had two AfDs before. The first one was an uncontested soft delete. The second one was a bit of a mess. Reshmaaaa's contribution to the second AfD begins here.

@Saqib delivered the COI template to Reshmaaaa's talk page 38 minutes before the article in question was deleted. I'm pinging @Just Step Sideways as the editor who deleted the page. If you are able to provide any further insight into this conversation by sharing deleted diffs or your own opinion, that would be greatly appreciated. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, another complaint! Must be my fan club trying to get my attention. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I apologize for the inconvenience caused, I meant no disrespect. Since I've just started I had no such experience in dealing articles with WP:sockpuppetry. Now that @Liz and @Asilvering clarified, I got it. Let me know if I can be of any help to you. Reshmaaaa (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Reshmaaaa, I think being accused of being a sock when you first start editing is a rite of passage on Wikipedia. I know that I faced it after a few months of editing here from someone (who no longer edits) who thought that I "knew too much" to be a new editor. All you can do is edit with integrity and prove them wrong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin is reverting my perfectly legitimate edit and making accusations of my being a sock of some other user at the very outset.

Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting my perfectly legitimate edit and making accusations of my being a sock of some other user at the very outset. I put in two very relevant points pertaining to the Adani Group ONLY on the Talk Page Talk:Adani Group and with references from highly regarded RS. With no discussion whatsoever they are reverting and over and above accusing me of being a sock in the edit summary. My edit His revert with accusation I am not sure of where this should be. So am posting this at two places.117.194.134.78 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you're a sockpuppet, but pinging random users to include information in the article certainly won't help. Instead, you can just edit the article yourself to include that information, paying attention to including reliable sources, and maintaining a neutral POV. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 11:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have notified the user for you. Next time, please notify a user before taking them to ANI. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 11:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As Matrix said, pinging random editor is no way to suggest changes to an article and is bound to raise eye brows especially when you're editing as an IP. And when an article has had enough problems with socks that it's even been discussed in the media, I think you should naturally expect a lot of suspicion anyway so your actions compound that even more. Your excessively bombastic tone when suggesting changes undoubtedly hasn't helped either. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I woudnt bother with comments like these but that "raise eyebrows" part....and "bombastic tone"....I looked through the revision history of the article and came across four names (three of them with higher editing privilages and one an Admin) and thought of asking them why those bits were not there (both were well known at their respective times). Its now clear to me that some editors on that article will only tolerate what they like to see there rather than what is true or fair. ```` 117.194.134.78 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying you are a sock then? Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How did you come to that conclusion from what the editor just said? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO and editor who knows enough to look through the revision history of an article, and even enough to work out that one of those editors is an admin (User:Materialscientist who has an admin category not no userbox), but somehow not enough to know it's completely inappropriate to ping said editors to a talk page discussion over something they weren't involved in to lambast said editors over the state over said article has likely gained that experience via questionable means. Otherwise they'd know much better how to bring disputes to the talk page such as raising issues calmly and neutrally and not pinging a bunch of uninvolved editors of nothing to do with them, or saying "had completely trashed the hindenburg report and its allegations against Adani". I'd note that looking at the edit history, AquilaFasciata only edited the article once in July 2023 [80] and does not show up in the talk page and MainlyTwelve likewise hasn't touched it since February 2023 [81] and also hasn't touched the talk page. There have been quite a few edits since then by other making me think that I was wrong to say these were "random". These were editors specifically chosen whether from experience or whatever else that lead the OP to believe they would be most likely to assist even if they didn't realise that lambasting them was unlikely to help in their goal. So in fact, this editor was experienced enough to do all that yet still somehow didn't understand the inappropriateness of WP:canvassing either. All again pointing to an editor who gained experience in trying to manipulate Wikipedia content most likely based on a COI, rather than improve it. P.S. Just noticed they even used a vandal template above. Although yes, they had justed posted simultaneously at AIV, still I think it's fair to say most inexperienced editors are not going to do that between pages. Of course even making it to AIV and ANI so quickly is IMO another clear sign of significant experience but only with limited WP:NOTHERE goals in mind. Likewise using RVV [82] Nil Einne (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't like to be in a position of defending an IP editor who heads directly to ANI on their first day, but experienced editors know that IP addresses are dynamic and this editor could have years of editing experience with a variety of different addresses. They could respond here tomorrow with a different IP address. That is the conclusion I would come to rather than they are a block-evading editor who is socking. But that's me, YMMV. I did revert the reversion of their talk page comments because, aside from the pinging, I thought it was legitimate for them to raise questions on an article talk page when every edit they made to an article are reverted. Assume this editor isn't a sock, where else should they go to to find answers? I think the AIV report was a mistake but, again, I'm not an editor whose every edit has been reverted, I'd be pretty frustrated, too.

But Nil, I appreciate your thoughtful explanation, I know it was based on your substantial experience editing on the project. I just think there is a pervasive bias against IP editors on this project, in general, and I like to give them the benefit of the doubt unless presented with clear evidence of their ill intent which I don't see here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt that this editor is a sock of a banned user and shouldn't be allowed to edit.[83] It's his modus operandi to mass ping a bunch of editors on the talk pages[84] and has been blocked on his other IPs.[85] I find your revert here to be unhelpful as it contradicts WP:DENY. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of banning socks is to prevent a registered user or an ip, from gaming consensus. On the talk page the IP has made only 1 comment. I think the action by Liz is justified. Editors must explain why the edits suggested by the ip are against the policy, instead of being heavy-handed. — hako9 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

But banned means banned. A banned editor is not allowed to make any edits anywhere. I have filed a proper SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor. Liz and Ratnahastin have a look. Capitals00 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if an ip is using multiple accounts, usually only sock accounts are perma banned, not the main account (unless main account is also disruptive). The ip's edit on the talk page merit a response, whether sock or not. Their request was in good-faith. It reflects poorly on long time editors, that they can't even explain their disagreements on the talk page, and they move straight to removing edits. — hako9 (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Socks are blocked, yes, but their main account is also blocked for using socks. In this case, this IP sock's main account was banned (not just blocked), as such he is not allowed to edit at all, even with the IPs. Anyway, this IP sock is now also blocked.[86] Ratnahastin (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No offense, Ratnahastin but your "sock detector" is not confirmation that an editor is a sock. It's grounds to file an SPI complaint but I don't believe in trusting any editor's suspicions as if they are factual unless they are an SPI clerk. I know I tell many NPP not to tag new articles as CSD G5s unless a sock is confirmed, we don't delete articles/pages on the suspicions that an editor MIGHT be a sock. I feel this is especially true for IP editors who already face a bias against them as they are frequently seen as probable vandals. But I can see we differ on this point and will not agree here but I just wanted to present my own view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Improper vanishing and restoration of a deleted article

Last year, I had a protracted debate at an AfD with Errico Boukoura. TLDR: the nominated article, which was written by him, used unencyclopedic language and the author bypassed proper AfC, after several failed AfC submissions, by removing the controversial parts and adding them back after passing AfC. At the AfD, everybody, except the author, agreed with deletion. After the deletion, the author vanished.

Today, I noticed the article (with a slightly differently spelled name) exists again. The unencyclopedic language is similar, if I remember well, to the original article. It was created just a few days after the closure of the AfD by IlEssere in their very first edit. Some historical revisions even use phrasing I remember from the original article:

• The transformation of the building into an artists hub elevated its status in the Athenian subculture art scene.
• The building came to symbolize the vibrant artistic community of the city, hosting a variety of exhibitions, performances, and initiative projects
• Today, the building of Keramikou 28 stands as a symbol of the Athenian art scene through the numerous exhibitions, performances, and projects hosted within its walls

Also note that the current article passed AfC, albeit in a much shorter version than the current text.

Pinging editors who participated in the AfD: @Explicit, Star Mississippi, S Marshall, XOR'easter, HandThatFeeds, and Daniel. Also pinging @ToadetteEdit, who approved the current article at AfC.

– Janhrach (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I forgot to note, to avoid confusion, that the current article is not a verbatim restoration of the deleted one. Janhrach (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I just got pinged; I didn't remember reviewing the draft and didn't noticed the AfD, but to be clear, doesn't the article meet G4 of speedy deletion? ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

When I thought that G4 applies, eligible page should be identical, and the substantial addition since the acceptance makes it ineligible, if I interpret policy properly. Other than that an AfD may be appropriate as I fail to verify any qualifying sources in the article that makes the building notable. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if you’re referring to the original page or the one I created. Regarding the page I created, the articles in Greek are the ones that mention the points you're addressing. IlEssere (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am referring to your (recreated) article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

All information added to the page is referenced, though most sources are in Greek, as this building is in Athens and has primarily gained attention locally.

You can share which specific parts you are referring so I can help with the transition of the reference. IlEssere (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Translation IlEssere (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I meant this edit, which happened after the AfD. You reviewed the recreated article, not the original one (that which was deleted). Janhrach (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Saw the diff, just realized that G4 would have applied, given that it was not caught by the helper script nor PageCuration to the least (given that Atlantic306 had given the article a pass) I am not sure whether G4 applies now or not with the current expanded version. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and still learning some of the terms, so I'm not familiar with what AfD means. I actually started using Wikipedia because of Keramikou 28. I came across an article related to it that had incorrect information and was poorly written, but I unfortunately lost track of it before I could figure out what happened to it.

After some research, I created a new page myself to provide accurate information on the topic. IlEssere (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

AfD=Articles for deletion ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! It seems others have also noted that the original page may not have been properly written besides me.

As for the page o created, I'd really appreciate any guidance on ensuring the page I created meets Wikipedia's standards. If you have suggestions or would like to make any corrections or add relevant information, please feel free to do so. IlEssere (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see this. Janhrach (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What about this? IlEssere (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you lost track of what happened to the article that had incorrect information, then why its historical revisions of your article contain text fragments from the old, deleted article? Janhrach (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, Keramikou 28 is what motivated me to start using Wikipedia. I initially copied the entire page to work on corrections offline, intending to upload them later. However, when I went to add the updates, I found that the page was no longer there, losing track of what happened.

Please feel free to make any corrections you find necessary on the page I created. If you have any questions about the Greek references, I’d be happy to help with translations for verification. IlEssere (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The notice about the AfD discussion was on the top of the article for two weeks. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don’t remember if I saw the AfD notice or not, as this was about a year ago. A friend told me that the had gone through some conversations about the relation of the page, but didn’t know what happened. I’m still quite new to Wikipedia and learning how everything works, so there’s a lot I’m still figuring out. IlEssere (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So you say that the author of the deleted article is a friend of yours? Janhrach (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I said a friend that had gone through some conversations. IlEssere (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What conversations? Do you mean they participated in the AfD? Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So this is substantially a recreation of the deleted article, and should be G4'ed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that while past revisions would certainly qualify for G4, the current one contains a lot of content not present is the deleted article, so it is not eligible. Janhrach (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a copy-paste of the previous page. I used the structure of the original as a framework, but I worked on it and made changes to create new content." IlEssere (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Long story short: Last year, @Errico Boukoura: created a draft for the topic, It was submitted 5 times and it was declined by 3 distinct reviewers including a rejection by @Greenman:. Apparently the decline was due to the article's tone. It was then reviewed by an experienced reviewer and accepted it, vbut later it was sent to AfD and deleted on grounds of wp:tnt. A few days later, another created the draft and was accepted five months later. Based on this, the article is plausibly notable, so the issue should be around the prose and/or the editor. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Could you provide some guidance on how I can improve the prose? IlEssere (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it is important to note that reviewed version of the original article was significanly abridged, and the removed content was re-added after review. Janhrach (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, and I’ve made changes to this. I’ve significantly abridged the content and removed unnecessary details to make the article more concise and focused. IlEssere (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My comment was about the original article created by Errico Boukoura. Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I admire your honesty, but it is impossible to verfy without the ability to view deleted revisions. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? IlEssere (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were an admin, so you could verify my claims. Janhrach (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion (thanks for the ping), this is not a G4, but nor does it address the issues which go far beyond prose. I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28 where the content is best discussed. If IlEssere's conduct needs assessing, this should remain open. If this is deleted, a note should be relayed to AfC reviewers to keep an eye out for spelling variations and that it's best left for experienced reviewers. Star Mississippi 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you share the present issues t on the current Keramikou 28 page that go beyond prose? Understanding these factors would be helpful in addressing the article's suitability. Additionally, are there specific elements (like sourcing or content focus) that you find problematic in its current version? IlEssere (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  IlEssere, article improvement is not a subject that is dealt with at ANI. I recommend asking any editors who reviewed the article for Articles for Creation if you went through that process or asking at the Teahouse. I also recommend participating in the AFD linked here so you can hear the critique of the article by editors, that might provide guidance on how to improve it. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am currently participating in the AFD discussion, but I've been advised to come back here to understand what the specific problems with the page are. I'm feeling a bit confused because the opinions on here seem to overlap, and I'm not sure what the main concerns are. Could someone help me understand the key issues that need to be addressed for this article? IlEssere (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  IlEssere, I'm not sure why anyone would tell you to return to ANI. This noticeboard deals with editor conduct, not content issues. This is not the forum to come to for advice on improving this article and your time is best spent elsewhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi IlEssere (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz I did send @IlEssere back here and the prior AfD to read all of the arguments already made about why the article should not have been re-created. IlEssere it's fine if you disagree, but you really do need to listen to the other editors' input especially in the prior discussion. Liz's suggestion about the AfC declines will also help. Star Mississippi 04:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. I just want to clarify that I'm not disagreeing. I'm genuinely trying to figure out the best approach for the article and understand how to move forward. IlEssere (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a situation where the spelling of the title of an article has been changed when it is recreated after a deletion. This is an all-too-common practice, in particular when the name of the subject is transliterated from a non-Latin writing system. This is a situation in which it is difficult to assume good faith, because it appears to be gaming the title, which is a conduct issue However, since the article has been nominated for deletion, we can focus on the content issue at the AFD and ignore the conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank for clarifying this. I tried to clarify the problems with the page at its AfD, but @Star Mississippi directed me here to find the reason why the article was AfD. IlEssere (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @IlEssere, you cannot understand the point. The article was sent to AfD because it is a recreated article that is not a G4 and neutrality as on the old deleted one is still disputed. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I understand what the problem is now. I confused since other things where mentioned on here. IlEssere (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The article should be, of course, discussed at AfD. But I think conduct should also be discussed, as there are plenty of reasons to think that IlEssere and Errico Boukoura are the same person:

1. The new article was created only a few days after the deletion of the old one. IlEssere explains this by saying that they copied the old article, worked on it, and uploaded their more-or-less finished work after the deletion. But the oldest revisions of Keramikou 28 do not seem to indicate this. They look like IlEssere restored verbatim fragments of the original article (Some passages are familiar to me, some less so, so I am not absolutely sure.) and worked on them on-wiki.
2. IlEssere claimed they didn't know what AfD means. However, they mentioned the AfD process in this Teahouse post. I find it highly unlikely that they would forget about the existence of AfD. Even if they had forgotten the name, I linked the AfD discussion above. I think it is very unlikely that they wouldn't remember even after visiting the AfD page.
3. Do not see a good-faith reason why would IlEssere leave the significant expansion of the current article for after the AfC, especially noting that they claim to be a completely new and unexperienced editor.
4. The language of the current article is similar to the previous one.
5. Both IlEssere and Errico Boukoura claim to speak English, Greek and Italian on their user page.
6. Notice the "Articles contributed" list on IlEssere's user page. It seems to be a list of all article they have edited. They list the article Theodoros Stamos there. However no edits have been made to the article by IlEssere. The last edit to the page is by Errico Boukoura.

IlEssere hasn't defensed themselves convincingly yet.

– Janhrach (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve addressed most of these concerns previously.

1. I discovered the Keramikou 28 page around the time it was deleted and noticed it had a lot of misinformation and was poorly written. Since I was new to Wikipedia, I copied the entire page and began working on improving it on my own with more accurate information, better tone, correct references, and a more suitable image.
2. As for AfD, until it was brought up again, I wasn’t entirely sure what it was. When I first posted in the Teahouse, I only knew from a tech-savvy friend who followed the original Keramikou 28 AfD process that the page had been deleted due to poor references. To clarify, as @Janhrach mentioned, I am *not* connected to the previous creator.
3. Could you clarify what you mean by “similar”?
4. If you are talking about the tone, I disagree that the new version resembles the old one, which I remember as being highly promotional.
5. While I do speak English, Greek, Spanish, Italian, French, German, and Arabic, I don’t think that sharing some of the same languages as Boukoura means we are the same person.
6. Lastly, I have made improvements to each article listed on my profile, including the Theodoros Stamos page.

IlEssere (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that this was the result of your offline work?

You said "I'm not familiar with what AfD means." and when ToadetteEdit responded "AfD=Articles for deletion", you were satisfied. This is not consistent with your reply that you weren't "entirely sure what it was".

As for the language in the old article, I will quote S Marshall:

The WP:TONE is unencyclopaedic; (2) its style is WP:EMPHATIC; and (3) it isn't WP:TERSE. It's full of needless modifiers (adjectives and adverbs), some of which border on peacocking. Someone really passionate about Kerameiko28 might write the content we're considering on an information leaflet -- we, as dispassionate and objective encyclopaedia writers, need to be succinct, direct, and clear.

This description also fits the current article.

Can you please post the diff in which you edited Theodoros Stamos? Was it this one or this one?

– Janhrach (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t even remember this, I thought you were referring to the current page. I'm not sure when I created that one, it was likely early edits in my Wikipedia.

What I tried to do was; copy the original page and make corrections, intending to update to how the current Keramikou 28 page looks.

As for AfD, I now know what it is, so lets focus on the current page.

Concerning my edits on Theodoros Stamos, I need to review them, as I can't recall when I made the edits. As you can see on my page, I have been editing numerous entries recently. But please give some time since I am busy in real life. IlEssere (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:No legal threats violation

At Talk:2024 Southport stabbing: diff. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Long term self promotion and CIR issues

I happened to notice today that Kitaro (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia almost exclusively in an attempt to promote a claim he invented the concept of Kinetic architecture. So I'm not accused out "outing", he's posted his real life name on his userpage. Going back to 2010, he's repeatedly inserted incoherent ramblings into the article like this [87] and edit warred to keep inserting a paragraph that he invented the concept [88], [89], [90] and [91]. He also posts argumentative comments on the talk pages of those who revert and/or disagree with him [92] particularly when they won't help him reinsert his own name and promotional claims into the Kinetic architecture article [93]. Given this editor's behavior going back 14 years I don't see much chance of constructive edits. We can call it WP:CIR if need be, but there's a clear refusal to accept that his promotional claims about himself aren't going to be added to that article. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kitaro#c-FeydHuxtable-20241024194200-Kinetic_architecture_3

this one links to a diff where the editor in question said something close to "I don't care about your simple article and I'm going to make my own". this editor is wp:not here. BarntToust 20:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just indeffed them. Only here to promote themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 22:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower7 - WP:NOTHERE

Special:Contributions/Cyberpower7 - An SPA account is adding delete votes without a rationale on all the AfDs they come across, previously warned by User:Jmcgnh and User:Geschichte. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have never seen worse comments in AFD with regards to quantity and quality. Completely non-communicative user - so far. I tried a few undo's, mostly as a technical means to display a red button, when the new message button obviously did not work at all. Rapid drive-by spammer, difficult to think otherwise than NOTHERE. Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

(ec) I am going to go through their edits and revert them one-by-one (in case the occasional one has some sort of substance). Agree the editor should be indeffed given previous warnings. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah--I see I'm not the only one seeing this. I'll block. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In their (very partial) defence, I am not sure their English is as strong as they might be thinking it is and therefore suggest that maybe they've not really understood the guidelines and can't express themselves clearly. It probably doesn't matter as I doubt they will read this, but maybe their enthusiasm would be better directed to a Wikipedia language project that they understand fluently. JMWt (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they can't speak fluent English isn't relevant. If they at least wrote something on AfD pages, no matter how illiterate-sounding and poor in form, they could be directed away from here and to a place that uses their language so they could contribute. If that were the case, this would be an issue of the lack of the ability to communicate. However, what this is in reality is an issue of low-effort posting on AfDs literally everywhere within a hop, skip & jump away; Their inability to understand this place due to the language barrier is superseded by the fact that they don't even at least try, make an effort to write anything on here, and that they Dunning-Kruger themselves into thinking they are competent enough to be on a branch of a site that requires a decent grasp of English, instead of having good judgement and going to the place where people speak a language that they are actually competent in. I seriously doubt the Indian Wikipedia or whoever would enjoy en.wikipedia dumping this WP:CIR issue on them. BarntToust 22:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You mean the Indian Wikipedia, where they speak, um, Indian? EEng 23:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

A script I didn't recognise, had to look it up: Santali language. There's a Santali Wikipedia here (And for EEng's benefit, I should point out that while I can *read* a little Indian, European and Asian, the only language I can really speak is American.) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 23:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@EEng, No. Given they freely advertise on their talk their user page as being a citizen of the Republic of India, I'm going to assume they speak Hindi, the other official language there besides English. But, there are, as you'll see by clicking the hyperlink of the Republic of India, numerous other languages that are recognised as regional, those are Assamese, Bengali, Boro, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu or Urdu... Which is why I say "their language" and generalise "the Indian Wikipedia" since I've not got the slightest of what language they have transcribed to their talk page, and which language-edition that they should not anyway be pointed to. Could be Hindi, could be any of these others.

I'm sorry, but whether or not this was sarcastic, my mind has gone to "Hey, do you speak Mexican?" BarntToust 23:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hold on, Shirt58 beat me to the punchline. Saying "I can read European and Asian and speak American" gets the teasing done just as well as the oft-said "saying-'Hey do you speak Mexican'-to-a-Hispanic-person" goof-up does. BarntToust 00:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

"one of the language-editions of Wikipedia that are of a language commonly spoken in India, where this editor is a citizen of" would probably be the more proper way to specify, but is long-winded. BarntToust 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother anymore. EEng 04:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

EEng#s, you're not the only one who has that question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hah! I knew someone would say that! EEng 06:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

TPA Revoke

Can we get a TPA Revoke of Special:Contributions/2.98.157.204 Please since being blocked they've attacked the blocking admin [94] [95] twice. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this here? If it's really an issue, the blocking admin can revoke talk page access themselves. 216.126.35.235 (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a very common request to make here. To the contrary, the blocking admin is not chained to their blocks and does not always see that TPA revocation is required. Remsense ‥ 论 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If the blocking admin is the target of a mild attack and not aware of it, its probably better for everyone to just ignore it rather than advertising and spreading the attack. 216.126.35.235 (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so, maybe not. The stakes are exceedingly low in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done – robertsky (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

So productive. I expect the perpetrator to return in a few days or sooner on a different IP. 216.126.35.235 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What would you recommend, 216.126.35.235? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Over the years, I've been on the receiving end of some vitriol that would peel the paint off a battleship. That was pretty tame. I generally am inclined to tolerate a certain amount of carping on talk pages as long as it isn't off the hook or menacing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Ad Orientem. I'll never forget the time I was told that I "embodied everything that was wrong about Wikipedia". At least that was grammatically correct even if it was cutting. But this is the internet, you have to expect pointy elbows sometimes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I recommend simply ignoring it. There is no need for a creating an ANI case or revoking talk page access in this situation. Long term, those actions are likely to only further escalate problems without providing any tangible benefit to anyone. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:8049:6C4C:E243:9CDE (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, "ignore it", gotcha. That's good advice, but do you happen to have any for when I see an ANI post that feels a bit frivolous to me? Remsense ‥ 论 12:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment on it of course. They don't call it the drama board for nothing. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:8049:6C4C:E243:9CDE (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

'Ignore it' is usually pretty good advice actually (see WP:DENY). If someone is moaning about their block on an IP's talk page, we don't really need to take any action about it. Sure, if they're making themselves a nuisance by pinging people or whatever it's worth stopping them, but if an ANI thread was started every time an blocked IP or vandal had written words to the effect of 'That admin is a complete asshole', the archive would be significantly longer. (This take me back a bit - this was my personal favourite piece of vandalism I reverted, followed by this witicism on their talk. Happy days...) Girth Summit _(blether) 12:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Whining, griping, snarky and sometimes amusing responses to a block are par for the course. Unless they are menacing or in some other form obviously disruptive, I think most admins just ignore them. My personal favorite... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of topic on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard by Bluethricecreamman

The user Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs) has non-admin closed a topic I started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding the reliability of CNN's political coverage before the discussion had reached any logical conclusion.

In addition to Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs), multiple editors made calls for my discussion to be closed essentially as soon as it was opened, namely The_Kip (talk · contribs), Myceteae (talk · contribs), Daveosaurus (talk · contribs), Slatersteven (talk · contribs), and Muboshgu (talk · contribs). I feel very strongly that this is completely antithetical to the foundational principles of Wikipedia, specifically that editors should assume good faith and seek consensus in their endeavor to maintain the integrity of what should be a high-quality, neutral encyclopedia.

I believe this very clearly falls under Wikipedia's definition of WP:BADNAC, specifically the point that a closure may not be appropriate if "the discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial."

As stated unambiguously at WP:NACD, a non-administrator should not close a discussion if they have offered an opinion in it, which Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs) did.

Personally this is very troubling. I started a topic in good faith on a very specific board, meant entirely for discussing the reliability of sources. A discussion about a foundational aspect of the encyclopedia was met with immediate negativity from other editors, with many of them outright refusing to concede basic points or even engage in discussion.

I am not alone in my assessment of CNN's political coverage; a cursory glance into any contentious political talk page will probably reveal multiple editors expressing a similar analysis in good faith. As it stands, that argument is typically just met by editors doing what they did to me - which is pointing to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and saying "well, the name is in green on the list so you are wrong", even though that is exactly the discussion I was trying to have.

The entire point of a properly neutral, intellectual environment like the one laid out in Wikipedia's policies is that someone like me should be able to have a discussion like this without literally being silenced by people who simply personally do not share the same assessment and want me to stop posting. How long is too long for a discussion about the foundational principle of source neutrality? An hour? A day?

Rob Roilen (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rob Roilen: given that they noted in their edit summary: Feel free to open it up and undo this edit if I was wrong. why didn't you ask them to revert the close before dragging this to ANI? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought about it but my interpretation of WP:BADNAC is that I can't do that, maybe I'm wrong? I see that it says:

"Per Wikipedia:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions, inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or could result in a request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review." Rob Roilen (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No, there's never anything wrong with one editor approaching another to ask them to reverse an action unless there is a topic or interaction ban, or the request was completely unreasonably; although in those cases it wouldn't be appropriate to bring it here either. In fact, it's expected that unless there is a very good reason, editors should always discuss stuff with an editor before bringing them to ANI. The Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures which is linked in the very next paragraph also makes it clear that in the particular case of challenging these types of closures you should discuss it with the closer first "For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion". The Wikipedia:Move review and Wikipedia:Deletion review pages for the other types of reviews also make it clear editors should normally do so, with differing levels of how important it is to do so for each. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This should absolutely not have been closed by someone who offered an opinion seven times within the same discussion. [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] On that basis alone, it should be reopened. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree having left several comments it was unwise to close it especially with so many others having commented. But I don't think we need to make a big deal over this, Bluethricecreamman specifically invited others to reopen it if they disagreed so I did just that. I have no objection to someone uninvolved closing it if they think it's justified. Nil Einne (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening. Hopefully the editor avoids closing discussions they are active in moving forward. Daniel (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Elli, why did you issue a block to Rob Roilen? Was it because they opened this complaint on ANI? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I commented above on this page explaining this. It's not just because of this complaint (which is substantively reasonable) but their approach to the entire topic area. The vast majority of their edits are arguing about recent developments American politics and not in a particularly constructive manner. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Elli. I was just surprised to see their name crossed out while I was reading this complaint. It's just that typically, when the block comes out of an ANI filing, it's mentioned here that an editor, especially if they are the OP, has been blocked. There was no mention in this discussion so I didn't understand the grounds for the block. I think if this persistence continues, a limited duration topic ban might be called for during this election period, but that's a separate discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably should've mentioned it in this thread too, yes. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I'm partly responsible for this mess (even though nobody bothered to tell me that I was mentioned) due to suggesting the quick closing of that time sink. Editor time and patience is not an inexhaustible commodity and I had hoped that stomping on the nonsense would have saved time.

I'd recommend Rob Roilen's block be converted to a one week topic ban from anything to do with American politics with the broadest possible construction. After one week silly season will hopefully be over and maybe in the meantime they will have found an article about a bird or a town or a footy team to improve. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

apologies to all. im a bit inebriated on a friday night rn and havent had a chance to respond. i made the close boldly to end a convo i suspected would not be productive on the notice board.

im fine with any revert of my close and made it boldly to suggest folks move on and continue appropriate conversations on the talk page . im happy to revert it, though i assume folks alredy have.

happy friday yall Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Good block of a disruptive SPA who already has a huge thread earlier on this page. If they resume this nonsense after November 4, their editing career is going to be a short one. Grandpallama (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Laura Bush

Who marked Laura Bush as deceased? I have seen no reports that she died today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:C641:57F6:FB06:8E18:F462:B26C (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This was vandalism from an IP which has now been reverted. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Big Ballin Oaks

Big Ballin Oaks (talk · contribs) I feel this may be preliminary—but also, who am I kidding? Their 13 edits so far consist mainly of of Mormon fundamentalist WP:FRINGE heaped onto a handful of pages. In addition, they made two peculiar posts on my talk page, though I took umbrage less with being called a racist Nazi, than with their passing familiarity with our corpus of essays, given they've only just registered.[103] Remsense ‥ 论 06:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Their username appears to be a play on Dallin H. Oaks--Diannaa (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the account is now checkuser blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandal/troll Fistagon back again

The Fistagon vandal/sock/troll is back again, this time under the name Jabberwok violates ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could someone please take the appropriate action against them and then revdel their usual schoolboy edit summaries, please? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked (thank you, Sam Walton!), but they're posting crap on their talk page (see this, for example), so need their TP access revoked; if the revdel could happen at some point, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed user talk page access and the post they made there. Also revdel done on a couple more edit summaries after Googling for meaning of terminology used. Some were less insulting/not quite BLP violations, but I think they qualify under RD3 (purely disruptive) -- Diannaa (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Diannaa - it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Weird report about the Modern Monetary Theory page.

TL:DR a page is being vandalized in a more long term way and subtle way, where can I go about this?

Hello, this is a strange report, I'm not reporting anyone. I'm reporting a belief that the Modern Monetary Theory article has been subject to long term vandalism, or confusion around the topic. It seems to me the former is more likely than the latter. I say this, because what little I know about the theory ABSOLUTELY conflicts with the pages description, from as early as the first sentence.

That sentence ends with the line "...needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires" to demonstrate that it's not just me saying that's wrong, here's a (very short) video about MMT, titled "your taxes pay for nothing" [104] - the title alone should clue you in to the idea that maybe MMT isn't claiming that "taxes need to be paid" and that giving such an impression in the opening sentence of the article, is a redflag that something's up.

Likewise MMT believes constructive work, contributes to economic growth and the value of the currency... not "savings desires" as the rest of that sentence posits. Again, these are the kinds of things someone whose against MMT might say about it. Falsehoods.

So why am I bringing it all the way here? Because this isn't standard vandalism, I can't report this as active and ongoing, and the usual means wouldn't resolve it (it's clearly gone under the radar)... and I don't have the time or inclination to fix it. I'm just a passer by. I'm happy to be directed elsewhere, thank you for your time, sorry if I wasted too much of it. 101.115.129.232 (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the content of this article, the best place to discuss problems with the article is on the talk page. As noted at the top, ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What you're describing isn't vandalism. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)